Commons Sitting of 26 October 1954

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOUSING, SCOTLAND

    Prefabricated Houses
    Mr. Stewardasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prefabricated houses were built in Scotland under the post-war programme; how many have since been demolished; and within what period he estimates that the remainder will be replaced by permanent brick dwellings.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): A total of 32,156 houses were built in Scotland under the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944, and of these 46 have been destroyed or demolished. No estimate can be given of the period within which the remainder of the temporary houses will be replaced by permanent ones.
    Sir T. Moore: Would it not perhaps be wise to regard these prefabricated houses more as transit camps between the thoroughly bad homes from which the people have been taken and the admirable houses which the Conservative Government have built for them?
    Mrs. Mann: Is there not a misunderstanding in the use of the adjective? "Prefabrication" is used extensively in Scotland for permanent houses. The Weir Housing Corporation has prefabricated houses which are good for 60 years.
    Commander Galbraith: My hon. Friend was referring to the prefabricated houses as part of the temporary programme. I referred to temporary accommodation under the Act.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that although some of the temporary houses have not stood up, plenty of people have fine homes in these temporary prefabricated houses and are very happy to be in them? It is a great mistake to slander everybody's home because one or two houses have given bad results.

    Rents
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what complaints he has received in respect of increased rents for corporation and privately-owned houses in Ayr and elsewhere; and if he will make a statement on the general position.
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend has had no complaints from Ayr. Representations are made to him from time to time about increases in the rents of local authority and privately-owned houses, but he has no power to intervene in these matters.
    Sir T. Moore: My right hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that his answer will do much to dissipate the unscrupulous propaganda that has been put about that all increases in rents are due to the actions of the Conservative Government.
    Mr. Manuel: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Housing Acts lay down that rents should be fixed by the local authority, the Department not entering into the matter? Would not a clearer picture be obtained so far as this Question is concerned if the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) applied to the municipality, which has a host of complaints about rent increases?
    Sir T. Moore: Oh, no, they have not.

    Cumbernauld New Town
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how soon designation and draft orders will be made in respect of the proposed new town at Cumbernauld.
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend has discussed with Glasgow Corporation the proposal for a new development at Cumbernauld to assist in meeting

    1731
    the corporation's housing needs, and he will not be in a position to reach a decision until he receives the answer to questions he has put to them.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the areas around Cumbernauld, including Airdrie, are waiting to find out whether draft orders are going to be made, so that they may make their representations? Could he speed up these draft orders?
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend is doing everything he can towards that end.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that many of us have grave doubts about the principles of new towns? Can he say what area of agricultural land will be involved in this affair?
    Commander Galbraith: That is a different question from the one on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Rankin: If the hon. and gallant Member had as little land as Glasgow has for housing he would not have any doubts in the matter.
    Mr. Formanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial and administrative obligations he has asked the Glasgow Corporation to undertake in the development of the new town at Cumbernauld.
    Commander Galbraith: The questions which my right hon. Friend has under discussion with Glasgow Corporation in connection with the suggested development at Cumbernauld include matters of finance and administration, but he is not in a position to make a statement in detail until he has the views of the Glasgow Corporation on these questions.
    Mr. McInnes: Why is it necessary to discuss the financial implications with Glasgow Corporation in respect of the only new town so far suggested to deal with its overspill when London has already had eight new towns to deal with its overspill and has not been asked to make any financial contribution?
    Commander Galbraith: The circumstances are not anything like similar.

  SCOTLAND

    Fish Meal Factories, Peterhead and Avoch
    Sir R. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to give an assurance that every effort is being made to complete the construction of the Government fish meal and oil factory at Peterhead in time for the summer fishing next year.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): Yes, Sir.
    Sir R. Boothby: Thank you very much.
    Mr. John MacLeodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the proposed fish meal factory at Avoch.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The Herring Industry Board has asked for a grant of £69,000 to meet the cost of this factory, and the County Council of Ross and Cromarty has applied for a grant towards the cost, estimated at £50,000, of a new pier to serve the factory. Both applications are under consideration.
    Mr. MacLeod: Can the Minister confirm that it is not necessary to have the pier before the factory is built?
    Mr. Stewart: I think I should have notice of that rather technical question. The proposition as it stands requires both the pier and the factory, and applications for both are under active consideration.
    Mr. MacLeod: If the pier should not be forthcoming in the immediate future, can my hon. Friend confirm that it will not hinder the building of the factory?

    Slaughterhouses (Siting)
    Sir R. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the report of the committee which has been considering the location of slaughterhouses.
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend hopes to receive the committee's final report by the end of the year.

    Ferry Service, Applecross (Pier)
    Mr. John MacLeodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made with the provision of a ferry

    1733
    service and pier at Toscaig, Applecross, Ross-shire.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: A preliminary survey has been made for the site of a pier and practical arrangements for operating a ferry service are being examined by the Departments concerned. There will be no avoidable delay in reaching a decision.
    Mr. MacLeod: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the people of Applecross consider that there has been far too long a delay already? Can he say when a decision will be reached, because this is an intolerable position in which these people are living and improved communications have been talked about for the last 60 years?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend will appreciate that this is a relatively small community. The cost of this operation would be very heavy, and therefore, although we want to do the right thing, it is proper that we should consider the matter with great care.
    Mr. MacLeod: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was his Department who decided that this scheme was an alternative to a road which the people really wanted and which should be built, and that his Department has agreed that this is an alternative?
    Mr. Stewart: That alternative, as my hon. Friend knows, was recommended by the Highland Panel, of which he is a member.

    Doctors (Partnerships)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that certain medical practitioners are taking assistants into partnership on payment of an agreed sum of money in compensation; and what action he will take to put an end to this practice.
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any cases of this kind. The purchase or sale of any part of the goodwill of a general medical practice in the National Health Service is an offence, and if the hon. Member has evidence of any such transactions he should report them so that prosecution may be considered.
    Mr. Rankin: I thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for that answer,
    1734
    which I hope will receive publicity, because this practice does exist. I have no particulars, and I do not know how widespread the practice is, but I hope that I can depend upon the Department to do its bit. I shall do my bit.

    Caravan Site, Maidens (Petition)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the nature of the petition he has received from the inhabitants of Maidens, Ayrshire, on the question of the establishment of a caravan camp in the village; and what was the nature of his reply.
    Commander Galbraith: The petition, which my right hon. Friend received on 19th October, protests against the decision of Ayr County Council as local planning authority to allow a permanent caravan site in the village of Maidens. He has informed the petitioners that he will consider the matter, but that he is first seeking the observations of the county council.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the inhabitants of this village are threatened with the taking away of their community centre, which was not a question before the county council? In considering the representations of the local authority, will he bear this fact in mind?
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend will bear all the facts in mind.

    Myxomatosis
    Major Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland which counties have been affected by the rabbit disease of myxomatosis; and what evidence he has of any rabbit developing immunity from the disease.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): Up to 25th October, there have been 86 confirmed outbreaks of this disease in all but three of the counties of Scotland. The counties so far free are Dunbarton, Roxburgh and Selkirk. My right hon. Friend has no evidence of any wild rabbits in Scotland having developed immunity to this disease, but he understands that in some parts of England a few rabbits have been found to have anti-bodies to myxomatosis in their blood.
    Mr. Prydeasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the apprehension expressed in many quarters of the danger of pollution of reservoirs and rural water supplies by the spread of myxomatosis; and if he will make a statement.
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend is aware of no grounds for apprehension. In their report of 16th March, 1954, the Advisory Council on Myxomatosis said that, on medical advice, they were satisfied there was no apparent risk to human health from the disease. No evidence has since been produced to warrant any different view.
    Mr. Pryde: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House what research was undertaken in Scotland before this ugly evil thing was loosed upon the countryside?

    Premature Baby Unit (Airdrie)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the infant mortality rate for the burgh of Airdrie was 46 per 1,000 live births, and compares with the figure of 31 for the whole of Scotland, and as a special premature baby unit is needed how soon this can be supplied.
    Commander Galbraith: Such a unit is already available at Bellshill Maternity Hospital, only four miles from Airdrie.
    Mrs. Mann: Yes, but surely the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that the Bellshill unit is overcrowded and that we just cannot get our mothers into it? Is he further aware that the incidence in Coatbridge is even higher than that in Airdrie, and that such a unit would serve both these burghs, which have two of the highest birth rates in Scotland?
    Commander Galbraith: The regional hospital board do not consider that a premature unit is needed at Airdrie.

    Monkland Canal
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made with Coatbridge Town Council in respect of the problem of the Monkland Canal.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: My right hon. Friend has brought the town council's
    1736
    representations to the notice of the British Transport Commission, which has informed him that the council has an option, until November, 1955, to acquire the area of the canal within the burgh and pipe the water. The question of filling in the canal seems, therefore, to be one between the council and the Commission.
    Mrs. Mann: The problem is one of money, and the cost to the council would be exceedingly high. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that was the way in which Glasgow's representations were dealt with?
    Mr. Stewart: I think the hon. Lady is right about that, but the fact remains that the matter is really one for the Council and the Commission. Financial matters will, no doubt, be considered when they arise.

    Fatstock Marketing
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the concern of the agriculture industry about the considerable profits which are being made by the expedient of moving stock which has been certified for Government guarantee from one market to another, thereby increasing the Treasury's liability; and what steps he is taking to deal with the practice.
    Mr. Snadden: My right hon. Friend is aware that there is some concern in the industry on this matter. The movement of stock is essential and, on balance, serves to reduce the overall Treasury liability provided there is no collusion. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government are watching very closely the operation of fatstock markets and will not hesitate to take action where there is evidence that markets are inefficient or unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the agriculture industry is concerned about the leakages which have taken place in this manner and that consumers would also be concerned if they knew about it? Apprehension is felt that once again both consumers and producers will be fleeced by people coming in as middlemen and using all kinds of rackets to take advantage of otherwise assured markets for the farmers.
    Mr. Snadden: I should like to make two points clear to the right hon. Gentleman. First, there is no possibility of an animal qualifying for the Government guarantee twice over because it is marked with certain marks. Secondly, where there is any evidence of collusion—that is to say, of people getting together in order to depress prices and thereby raise the Exchequer liability—we have machinery ready to put a stop to it.

    Prescription Charges (Payments)
    Mr. Carmichaelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total financial cost to medical patients for service under the National Health Service, for the year 1953–54; and what he estimates the charges will be for 1954–55.
    Commander Galbraith: The total payments by patients in 1953–54 in respect of drugs and appliances prescribed by general practitioners were £740,000. My right hon. Friend does not expect that the 1954–55 figure will be materially different. If the hon. Member has some other item in mind, perhaps he will let me know.
    Mr. Carmichael: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman state the amount paid by old-age pensioners out of this sum?
    Commander Galbraith: I could not do that.

    Potato Harvesting (School Children)
    Mr. Carmichaelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of school children who were engaged on potato harvesting this year from Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Dundee, respectively; and the number from each authority who were from senior secondary schools and fee-paying schools, respectively.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The harvesting of the potato crop is not yet complete. The latest information is that 1,544 Glasgow children went from junior secondary schools, 108 from senior secondary schools and none from fee-paying schools. Seven hundred and thirty-nine Edinburgh children went from junior secondary schools, 46 from senior secondary schools and 537 from fee-paying schools. Three thousand, three hundred and seventy-two Dundee
    1738
    children went from junior secondary schools, 430 from senior secondary schools and four from fee-paying schools.
    Mr. Carmichael: About two years ago the Minister indicated that steps were being taken to abolish potato harvesting by children from the big towns. Can the hon. Gentleman say what progress has been made? He will understand from the figures he has given today that the great majority of children who take part in potato harvesting are those whose education will stop at 15 years of age. It is a very serious handicap to put these children to potato harvesting.
    Mr. Stewart: No child goes unless it volunteers to go, or its parents volunteer for it to go, so there is no compulsion about the matter. Secondly, I would point out that the numbers of children used in the potato fields have steadily fallen in recent years, and look like continuing to fall.
    Mr. Woodburn: Can the hon. Member say what progress has been made in finding a harvesting machine capable of dealing with Scottish soils, because this whole question hinges on the invention of such a machine?
    Mr. Stewart: I have been into this question very carefully, and I am sorry to say that we have not found such a machine. Some machines are very good for soil without stones, but the universal machine has not yet been discovered.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is my hon. Friend aware that the happiness and good health of these children as a result of this excellent work, have to be seen to be believed?
    Mr. Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that these junior schools are those causing most problems educationally, and that it is most unfair for this kind of school to have its pupils raided annually for this purpose? Can he tell us how long on an average those children are away from school, because I believe that in some cases there has been an extension for yet another three weeks?
    Mr. Stewart: It is difficult to give average figures. Some are away much less, some a week, some a fortnight. In Perth and Angus, on account of the exceptionally bad weather, the local authorities have, I think generously, extended the

    1739
    period of exemption. In the circumstances, I am afraid that we cannot do anything but use the labour of the children for the time being.
    Mr. Bence: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Soviet Union I myself saw a potato harvesting machine which harvests potatoes efficiently in all kinds of soil? Is he really telling us that our technicians and engineers are incapable of producing such a machine? If this labour is very cheap, I can understand why certain people are not interested in an expensive machine, but do not let the hon. Gentleman try to tell us that such a machine cannot be devised, because I have seen one.
    Mr. Stewart: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not a matter of expense. The best technicians of our country are examining this problem but have not yet found a machine. If the hon. Gentleman has information about a Soviet machine, it is his duty to let us know all about it.

    Children's Comics
    Mr. Benceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take steps to prohibit the sale of United States comic papers, which are on sale in Glasgow and other cities of Scotland.
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the evil effects of certain comic papers now being sold to children and what steps he is taking to prevent or control the sale of such harmful reading matter.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Representations have been received by my right hon. Friend from a number of sources and, in consultation with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary, he is giving the matter very careful consideration.
    Mr. Bence: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we in this country are being held up to ridicule, since much excellent literature is banned from our libraries because it is said to be obscene while, at the same time, there is nothing more obscene than portraying a human being as a ghoul, as many of these comics do? It is just not understood. Would the Minister take immediate steps to stop this
    1740
    filthy literature circulating amongst the children of this country?
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister tell us to what extent he is co-operating with religious and educational bodies on this matter? Whilst we appreciate that his investigations into a solution will naturally take time, will he meanwhile make an appeal to the newsagents to stop handling this stuff?
    Mr. Stewart: As the hon. Gentleman and the House know, we are all agreed that this is dreadful literature. I have seen examples, and I think it is horrible. The question of what to do is a difficult one to answer, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that in making our present examination we shall be in contact with all the bodies from whom we expect to get help.

    Leith Town Hall (Rebuilding)
    Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to make a statement about the rebuilding of Leith Town Hall.
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend expects to receive from Edinburgh Corporation shortly further information which he hopes will enable him to reach a decision on this proposal without delay.
    Mr. Hoy: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland promised me just before the Recess that he would be giving his decision very soon? Is the House now to understand that the Minister is still waiting on further information which he did not have at that time?
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend then informed the hon. Gentleman that the corporation was being asked for details. We are still awaiting the reply.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Leith Town Hall was bombed in one of the first bombing raids of the war? In view of the reconstruction which has taken place in other parts of the country, surely a town hall of this kind ought to get some. priority?
    Sir G. Lloyd: Why did you not do it; you had six years?
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend has asked for information which has not yet been forthcoming.

    Tuberculosis Treatment
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the young Sutherland woman, who is suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis and of whom he has particulars, has been waiting over a year and a half for a bed in Woodend Hospital, Aberdeen, where she will undergo an operation for resection of ribs; and, in view of the fact that this lady was first admitted to Cambusavie Hospital in November, 1950, and discharged after seven months' treatment, readmitted in March, 1952, and discharged after 15 months' treatment, if he will take immediate steps to have the operation carried out at Woodend Hospital or elsewhere.
    Commander Galbraith: Thoracic surgery facilities in the north of Scotland have, unfortunately, been very limited, and a considerable waiting list has arisen. The Scottish Branch of the British Red Cross recently put at our disposal facilities for the purpose at their Tor-na-Dee Sanatorium, and as a result my right hon. Friend expects that delays in providing treatment will be greatly reduced. The order in which patients are admitted must, however, be left to the doctors concerned to decide in the light of relative urgency on medical grounds and other material factors.
    Sir D. Robertson: Why should the north of Scotland area be segregated, as it has been in the answer of my right hon. and gallant Friend? What about Glasgow, Edinburgh, London. Leeds, and all the other places where there are skilled surgeons and beds waiting? Is it not quite wrong that this young woman should be left in the serious state she is? If an operation is necessary, it should have been done 18 months' ago.
    Commander Galbraith: I can only repeat what I have said to my hon. Friend, that the order in which patients are admitted must be left to the doctors concerned to decide in the light of other cases of urgency.
    Sir G. Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what developments he has to report regarding the provision of hospital treatment for tuberculosis.
    Commander Galbraith: The General Nursing Council for Scotland has decided that tuberculosis nursing, for a minimum of eight weeks, should, in future, be part of the training of a student nurse for State registration. This will apply to students entering training from January, 1956, unless excused for medical reasons. My right hon. Friend welcomes the Council's decision, for it will, no doubt, result in an expansion of the nursing force trained in the care of tuberculosis.
    Sir G. Lloyd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great many other people in Scotland will also welcome this most intelligent decision?
    Miss Herbison: Since the General Nursing Council has taken this decision, can we be certain that the one board in Scotland which so far has done very little about seconding nurses to this service will fall in line and ensure that at least eight weeks' training will be done in this type of nursing before going on to staff nursing?
    Commander Galbraith: It would not appear that there would be any option.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Does the announcement mean that in future tuberculosis training will count as part of the general training of nurses?
    Commander Galbraith: Yes, Sir.

    Local Authorities (Derating Losses)
    Mr. Formanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what extra financial provisions he is prepared to make to cover loss to Glasgow Corporation of £1 million per year owing to derating.
    Commander Galbraith: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies to his questions of 13th July last, to which I cannot add at present.
    Mr. Forman: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, in answer to a recent question, he referred to the fact that the Secretary of State was awaiting the Report of the Sorn Committee and that once he had received that Report he would be able to give a decision on this question?
    Commander Galbraith: Surely the hon. Member realises that it takes some little time to assimilate all that is in that Report.

    Mentally Defective Children, Midlothian (Institutional Care)
    Mr. Prydeasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what accommodation is provided in Midlothian for institutional care of mentally defective juveniles.
    Commander Galbraith: The South-Eastern Region as a whole is served by Cogarburn Institution, Edinburgh, and Strathore Institution in Fife, which have respectively 100 and 105 patients under 16. In addition, under arrangements made by the hospital authorities, some 80 places for child and adolescent defectives in the South-Eastern Region are available in institutions run by voluntary bodies in the area.
    Mr. Pryde: Is the Minister aware that the practice of keeping these mental defectives in the home is a serious danger to domestic conditions in my constituency?
    Commander Galbraith: I am not aware of that.
    Mr. Pryde: I have already sent particulars of one case to the Minister and will send particulars of others.

    Poliomyelitis, Aberdeenshire
    Sir R. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to give full statistics of the recent outbreak of poliomyelitis in Aberdeenshire; and what action has been taken to prevent an extension of the disease.
    Commander Galbraith: The present outbreak of poliomyelitis in Aberdeenshire has affected five children in Insch, four in Old Meldrum, three in Huntly and two in Oyne. On the advice of the county medical officer of health four schools have been closed, and the cooperation of parents has been sought in keeping children away from cinemas, clubs and other such gatherings for the time being.
    Sir R. Boothby: Arising out of that answer, and in view of the fact that in this kind of situation unfounded rumours are apt to spread giving rise to unnecessary anxiety, will my right hon. and gallant Friend impress on authorities directly concerned the desirability of making the fullest possible information available to the public, both with regard to the facts
    1744
    and to any action which it is advisable that they should take?
    Commander Galbraith

    Legal Aid Scheme
    Mr. Steeleasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when it is proposed to bring into force Sections 5 and 7 of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: It is not proposed for the present to bring these sections into force.
    Mr. Steele: Could the Joint Under-Secretary tell us why not, and also why this Question is referred to him? Is he aware that I put the Question on the Order Paper to the Lord Advocate, as I was sure that the House was very anxious to know what the Lord Advocate had to say on the subject?
    Mr. Stewart: I do not know the answer to the second part of the supplementary question. The reasons why we take this view now are probably the same as those that appealed to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they introduced the Measure.
    Mr. Steeleasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the number of legal aid certificates which are being abandoned after they have been approved; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is watching very carefully the operation of the legal aid scheme, but amending legislation is not proposed at present.
    Mr. Steele: Has the Lord Advocate drawn the attention of the Secretary of State to the fact that 12·3 per cent. of the applications were abandoned? Could we have an assurance that the reasons why the applications were abandoned are examined, and can the Minister say now whether they were abandoned because even the financial obligation on the individual was too great?
    Mr. Stewart: The report of the Society, which, as the hon. Member knows, was issued the other day, did not make all the reasons clear. Some were suggested, but I do not think that we know all the reasons at this stage.
    Mr. Steele: Will the hon. Gentleman have an examination made into the facts and find out?
    Mr. Stewart: I will consider that.

    Dentists
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how great is the shortage of dentists and school dentists in Scotland; and what steps are being taken to rectify the situation.
    Commander Galbraith: The number of dentists in general practice is sufficient to meet the current demand for treatment. If the rate of growth of the school service since 1951 continues for another five years, this will provide the 100 additional dentists still required in that service. But there has been a substantial drop in the number of students entering dental schools in the last few years. My right hon. Friend and the Minister of Health are considering with the British Dental Association how we can help to maintain recruitment to the profession at an adequate long-term level.
    Mr. Grimond: I am grateful to hear that steps are being taken to recruit more dentists. May I draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that in my constituency conservation work is badly behind and that there are very few school dentists in Orkney? Having paid a few dentists too much for a short time, is it not possible that we are now paying all dentists too little to secure recruits to the profession?

    Shetland County Rate
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the rates in Shetland are now 38s.; and if he will consider extra assistance to the county, for instance, over road grants.
    Commander Galbraith: I understand that in fixing the county rate at 33s. the county council took no account of the additional equalisation grant, estimated to be equivalent to a rate of 10s. 6d., which is likely to result from the increased local expenditure in the current year. As regards the second part of the Question, I regret that my right hon. Friend is unable to provide the council with further assistance.
    Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that, on top of the normal rate of 33s.,
    1746
    in many areas there is an extra water rate of 5s. or more? Does his answer mean that the county could reduce the rate in view of the further assistance it receives from the equalisation fund and the Government?
    Commander Galbraith: The Government are already providing grants of over 90 per cent. of the total local expenditure, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can ask for more.
    Mr. Manuel: The Minister indicated that cognizance has been taken of the contemplated rise in the rates, involving 10s. 6d. extra from equalisation grant sources. Would he inform the House what that would mean in total grants to Shetland?
    Commander Galbraith: I have not the precise figures.
    Mr. Manuel: Shall I tell the right hon. and gallant Gentleman?

    Wood-pulp Manufacture
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to the possibility of producing wood-pulp from home-grown timber; and what assistance is given to firms setting up board factories and sawmills.
    Mr. Snadden: Home-grown softwood is suitable for the production of wood-pulp, and is already being used to a limited extent for this purpose. My right hon. Friend hopes that the interest being shown by industry in the development of the pulping of home-grown timber will lead to the establishment of new pulping plants. The Government are prepared to consider assistance to projects of this kind so far as their powers and resources permit.
    Mr. Hannan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Forestry Commissioners themselves have already a financial interest in a company engaged in saw-milling and the processing of small timber? Will he ask them to consider taking similar action in respect of the making of wood-pulp?
    Mr. Snadden: The Forestry Commissioners are already in touch with certain organisations on this matter and are making available supplies of material hitherto not available because of the lack of thinnings.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that the factory which has started is greatly handicapped by slowness in obtaining supplies? Will he look into that?

    Valuation and Rating (Report)
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the Report of the Sorn Committee on Scottish Valuation and Rating; and whether he will make a statement regarding its recommendations.
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend is in consultation about the Report with the local authority and other interests concerned, and he is not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Willis: In his consideration of this Report, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the recommendations are based on the assumption that the present system is not overloaded whereas the main burden of complaint of most people, as indicated by the Report, is that it is overloaded?
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend will take all these matters into consideration.

  EDUCATION, SCOTLAND

    Golspie Technical School (Entrance Examination)
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that 11 candidates who recently sat a test for entry to the commercial course at Golspie Technical School were all failed, including at least one girl from Dornoch Academy with an excellent report; and if these candidates were "ploughed" for lack of merit or lack of places.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: My right hon. Friend understands that although there were places for two or three more students in this further education course, only 12 candidates reached the required standard in the entrance test conducted by the education authority. The authority decided that none of the remaining 11 candidates could be regarded as qualified to enter in view of their performance in the test.
    Sir D. Robertson: If my hon. Friend is satisfied with that answer, I am not. Is
    1748
    it not quite ridiculous that a student who has gained 70 per cent. at Dornoch Academy, the leading school in Sutherland, as against an average of 50 per cent. for all the other students, is debarred from entering this technical school on the grounds that she is not competent? May I remind the Minister that the London County Council stated in their educational report that 78 per cent. of the students passed out into a commercial college education? Why cannot Sutherland have an equal opportunity?
    Mr. Stewart: First, this is entirely a matter for the education authority, and the Secretary of State has no power to intervene. Secondly, most of the girls, including the young woman to whom my hon. Friend has referred in particular, failed because they did not reach an adequate standard in the English dictation test which is part of the entrance examination. I am afraid that we have to accept the decision of the education authority.
    Mr. Ross: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether those extra places he told us about were left unfilled?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is asking about the 11 who failed——
    Mr. Ross: Yes, I know. Who filled the places?
    Sir D. Robertson: In view of the very unsatisfactory answer to my Question about 11 candidates, all of whom failed, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Corporal Punishment (Record Books)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many education authorities have a regulation compelling teachers to keep a record book of corporal punishment as recommended in paragraph 464 of his Department's publication, "The Primary School in Scotland."
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: No education authority has made a regulation requiring all their teachers to keep records of all corporal punishment administered. When the memorandum to which the hon. Member refers was issued, it was not intended that its suggestions should be

    1749
    enforced by regulation but that they should be brought to the notice of teachers for their guidance. This has been done, and my right hon. Friend knows that some teachers have adopted the practice of keeping records.
    Mr. Thomson: Is this not an admission from the Under-Secretary of a great disregard on the part of the Scottish local authorities of the modest recommendation made four years ago in this document; and does he not feel, quite apart from any question of the eventual abolition of corporal punishment in our Scottish schools, that we ought to try to control it much more than we do? Would the hon. Gentleman not take some lead in this matter and try to keep Scotland's educational traditions at the level at which we used to be accustomed to have them?
    Mr. Stewart: It is the old question of the extent to which the central Department should dictate to local education authorities. In this matter, as in others, we take the view that the suggestion made in the memorandum should be regarded as a suggestion rather than a command, and left to the good sense of the teachers to act upon.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does my hon. Friend not agree that we are losing all sense of proportion in this matter, and that to have a record kept of every time a child gets a couple on the pants is really too silly?
    Miss Herbison: As it is four years since this publication came into the hands of the education authorities and of the teachers, and since we on this side of the House do not believe in direction, does not the Joint Under-Secretary of State now think it advisable to send a further circular to every education authority and ask them to let every teacher in Scotland have a copy of that circular?
    Mr. Stewart: Of course, I will consider the suggestion of the hon. Lady.

    School Transport, Midlothian (Cost)
    Mr. Prydeasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total amount of money spent in 1953 on the transport of school children in the County of Midlothian.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The amount in the year ended 15th May, 1954, was £15,936.
    Mr. Pryde: Does not that indicate to the Joint Under-Secretary that it is more economical to build the necessary local schools?
    Mr. Stewart: No expenditure was incurred in transporting pupils because of local shortages of school accommodation in that area.
    Mr. Pryde: For instance, Penicuick and Dalkeith?

    School Building Projects (Advisory Teams)
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will establish a separate branch of the Education Department in which architects, administrators and inspectors will work together as a team to co-ordinate the efforts of the local authorities and quicker approval of school building projects.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: There is already in the Education Department a separate branch which has a building development team composed of architects, administrators and inspectors to give general guidance to education authorities about school building. Quicker approval of building projects is normally obtained by informal consultation between the architects, and in some areas a joint working party of technical officers and administrators has been set up by the Department and the education authority to keep the building programme under frequent review. These arrangements are working reasonably well and my right hon. Friend does not propose to change them.
    Mr. Hannan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the suggestion in this Question is one of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates in their eighth Report on education? Can he say whether the frustrating and irritating delays which occurred in sanctioning of plans for schools because of plans being passed backwards and forwards between Government Departments and local authorities is now being cut down?
    Mr. Stewart: We are endeavouring ail the time to cut down any unnecessary

    1751
    red tape. I can assure the hon. Member that we are giving special attention to the matter.
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take in respect of recommendation 19 of the eighth Report of the Select Committee on Estimates that Scottish local authorities should be given the same power as English and Welsh local authorities to co-opt teachers for consultation in respect of design and planning of new schools.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: In Circular 268 of 13th June, 1953, my right hon. Friend advised education authorities to obtain advice on the planning of schools from experienced teachers. As regards the co-option of teachers to education committees, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on 26th January to the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson).

    Teachers' Pensions (Payments)
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Educational Institute of Scotland on the question of monthly payment of teachers' pensions; and what action is proposed.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: At a meeting on 17th July, the Educational Institute of Scotland made representations to my right hon. Friend about the monthly payment of teachers' pensions. He is considering these representations, but he cannot at present make any statement on the subject.
    Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman say when we are likely to have an answer, as 17th July is almost four months ago?
    Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Member is asking for a date, I am afraid I cannot give him one.

    Grove Academy, Broughty Ferry (Annexe)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when approval was granted by his Department for building an annexe to Grove Academy, Broughty Ferry; when build-
    1752
    ing was commenced; when it was originally estimated it would be completed; and what steps are now being taken to ensure completion in time for occupation in August, 1955.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The proposal was approved in principle in December, 1950. Building began in April, 1952, and the education authority estimated that it would be completed in 18 months. The labour force on the job has recently been increased.
    Mr. Thomson: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the building will be completed? Will it be ready for the next school session? Is he aware that educational development is considerably held up and that the teachers in this school are at their wits end to know how to deal with the present overcrowding?
    Mr. Stewart: It is estimated by the local education authority that the school should be ready by February next year. The Scottish Education Department can claim that it has borne a considerable part in expediting the work in recent months.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    De-requisitioned Premises
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Minister of Works how many business and residential premises have been de-requisitioned in the three years since the present Government took office, as compared with the previous three years.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Nigel Birch): Government Departments have de-requisitioned 733 residential premises, and 1,858 other holdings during the last three years. The comparable releases for the previous three years were 2,855 and 2,966.
    Sir T. Moore: As obviously those figures cannot give a correct picture, would my hon. Friend give the relative percentages during the period?
    Mr. Birch: During the last three years we have de-requisitioned 70·5 per cent. of the outstanding properties requisitioned as opposed to 53 per cent. In fact, we are de-requisitioning nearly half as fast again as under the previous Government.

    London Builders' Conference (Restrictive Practices)
    Mr. P. Wellsasked the Minister of Works if, in view of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission's Report on the Supply of Buildings, he will insist on tenderers for Government building contracts signing the declaration of non-collusion, as recommended by the Royal Institute of British Architects.
    Mr. Birch: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) on 19th October, in which I said that discussions were taking place. Meanwhile, I do not propose to alter the declaration now in use.
    Mr. Wells: Is the Minister aware that his reply will give great disappointment to Kent County Council and many other local authorities which feel that the Minister is dragging his feet in relation to this matter?
    Mr. Birch: I said that I would make a statement as soon as I am in a position to do so.

    Atomic Energy Authority (Buildings)
    Mr. G. R. Straussasked the Minister of Works how far his Department is still responsible for the erection and maintenance of the Atomic Energy Authority's buildings.
    Mr. Birch: The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority will assume direct responsibility on 1st December next for new construction in the Industrial Group which is controlled from Risley. Arrangements are also being made for the Authority to take over responsibility for the maintenance of their buildings other than their London Headquarters offices. My Ministry will continue for the time being to be responsible for new construction in the Research and Weapons Groups.
    Mr. Strauss: What is the cause of this change? The Atomic Energy Authority previously commissioned the Ministry of Works to do all this building work and the Ministry did it exceedingly well. Now apparently it is going out of the hands of the Ministry. Has the Authority no confidence in the Ministry of Works?
    Mr. Birch: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Ministry has done exceedingly well, but all nationalised bodies, such as the Coal Board, the British Electricity Authority, the gas boards and so on, do their own building.
    Mr. Strauss: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that they do their own construction and have their own construction companies, or that when the Atomic Energy Authority want a building put up they invite contractors other than the Ministry of Works to submit estimates?
    Mr. Birch: If they are taking over responsibility for their own building, it will be for them to select their own contractors and carry out the work in the way they think it ought to be done.
    Mr. Strauss: The Ministry of Works will no longer be invited to submit estimates and plans as they have in the past and as they have done so well? If so, it will be a ridiculous situation.
    Mr. Birch: That is a matter for the Atomic Energy Authority to decide.

    Royal Parks (Car Parking)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Works whether he will make a further statement about car parking in the Royal Parks.
    Mr. Birch: I am reviewing the problem with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and the police.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: It is taking a very long time. Will the Minister give an assurance, before London traffic is brought to a complete standstill, that he will resist pressure from the Minister of Transport, although we know he is in a bit of a jam, to allow buses, lorries, vans and charabancs to park in the Royal Parks?
    Mr. Birch: All these considerations will be kept in mind.

  HOUSES, BIRMINGHAM (FLOATING FLOORS)
  Mr. Chapmanasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, (1) how many local authorities have been advised by the Building Research Station to use the

  1755
  floating floor which has proved, on the Egghill Housing Estate, Northfield, Birmingham, to be useless in soundproofing, to sink away from the walls, and to slope;
  (2) what advice the Building Research Station is now giving to the Birmingham City Council regarding removal or reconstruction of the floating floors used on the Egghill Housing Estate, Birmingham, on its recommendation; and whether he will offer to meet the costs involved.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. J. R. Bevins): In 1950, the Building Research Station published particulars of a timber floor giving improved sound insulation, and many of these floors have been used in flats constructed for local authorities. An alternative has recently been devised which gives better insulation, but at increased cost. The only complaint received has been from Birmingham, and my noble Friend is arranging for a member of the Building Research Station to look into the matter immediately.
  Mr. Chapman: In view of the enormous cost to the Birmingham City Council, will the Parliamentary Secretary, firstly, make some contribution towards the cost, since the Building Research Station approved the original recommendation? Secondly, how is it that these floors now sag; that you can walk across them and the furniture dances towards you with the vibration and that you can hear everything going on in the flats below? And how it is that the Building Research Station recommends such floors to the councils of this country?
  Mr. Bevins: I think that the House would be well advised to await the result of the examination which is to take place. After all, this is the first complaint which has been made throughout the whole country. It may well prove that the floors have been wrongly laid. Any question of compensation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
  Mr. Chapman: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the majority leader of the Birmingham City Council says that these floors have been built strictly to the specifications of the Building Research Station? In those circumstances, surely some contribution towards the cost of
  1756
  taking them away should be made by his Department?
  Mr. Bevins: Surely the right thing to do is to examine the matter, and surely it is equally plain that the Birmingham city architect thought that this design was a good one. Otherwise, it would not have been adopted in Birmingham.

  MINISTERIAL SALARY CUTS (RESTORATION)
  Mr. Rankinasked the Prime Minister if he is now prepared to restore the cut, imposed three years ago, on the salaries of Ministers of Cabinet rank, as a temporary abatement.
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister how far the acceptance by Cabinet Ministers of reduced salaries applies to the new appointments.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): On 31st October, 1951, the Government announced that the salaries of senior Ministers would be reduced "for the period of rearmament or for three years, whichever ended first." The abatements will, therefore, cease with effect from 1st November next.
  Mr. Rankin: On behalf of the Ministers concerned, may I thank the Prime Minister?
  Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that, when he commended the Judges Remuneration Bill to the House, the strongest case he produced for increasing the salary of the Lord Chancellor from £10,000 to £12,000 was that the Lord Chancellor was patriotically not going to take it? Are we to assume that this magnificent precedent will not be adopted in the case of the new Lord Chancellor?
  The Prime Minister: I think that I should like notice of that question.

  ANGLO-RUSSIAN RELATIONS
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Minister in what form he has conveyed to authorities of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics his expression of willingness to meet Mr. Malenkov if agreement can be reached on an appropriate time and place.
  The Prime Minister: I have no reason to think that the Soviet authorities are in any doubt about my views on this matter, but I am not going to be drawn into discussing methods of communication.
  Mr. Warbey: As the Prime Minister announced last week, I believe for the first time, that he is willing to meet Mr. Malenkov if the appropriate time and place could be found, will he not follow the usual precedent of informing the Soviet authorities so that negotiations can take place through the usual diplomatic channels to arrange such a meeting?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think it would be advantageous in every case to disclose all the methods of communication which take place in these matters.
  Mr. Bevan: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is very difficult for the public outside to understand the situation when week after week he says in this House that he is willing to have high level talks with the Russians and, whenever they invite him to have them, he declines?
  The Prime Minister: I do not know what invitation the right hon. Gentleman is referring to.
  Mr. Bevan: The last invitation by the Soviet Union——
  Hon, Members: Which one?
  The Prime Minister: That was a general invitation to a four-Power conference——
  Mr. Bevan: What is wrong with that?
  The Prime Minister: —and at this particular stage, when the agreements reached in Western Europe have still to be ratified, I do not think the moment has been reached for a four-Power conference.
  Mr. Bevan: Is not that all the more reason why the right hon. Gentleman should accept the invitation just now? Is it not the fact that the Prime Minister of France, who is a party to the agreements recently tentatively entered into, has said that he himself sees no reason why talks should not run concurrently with the establishment of Western European Union?
  The Prime Minister: Well, Sir, whether there should be a four-Power conference, including the Soviets, is a matter which must be discussed by the Governments concerned, and the exact relation of such a very important meeting to any personal contact I may have the opportunity of making with Mr. Malenkov, that personal intervention ought not in any way to affect a general decision on the main issue.

  SCOTLAND (CONSUMER INTERESTS)
  Mr. Rankinasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the appointment of a fourth Under-Secretary of State to look after consumer interests in Scotland, in view of the increased duties which will fall on the Secretary of State for Scotland as a result of the fusion of the Ministries of Agriculture and Food.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not consider that the new duties referred to in the Question will call for the appointment of an additional Scottish Minister.
  Mr. Rankin: Is the Prime Minister aware—as I am sure he is—that a week ago he stated in the House that
  "the interests of the consumers require most careful consideration"?—[OFF ICIAL REPORT, 19th Oct., 1954, Vol. 531, c. 1034.]
  Does not he agree that those interests would be better safeguarded by placing them under the control of a Ministry specially created for that purpose, rather than assigning them to a Minister whose interests are competing with and in conflict with those of the consumer?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I do not think so. It would be curious to set up in the same Government two Ministers with absolutely opposite and conflicting objectives. It is very much better for all Ministers to concern themselves with the efficient discharge of their duties so as to secure the cheapest and most abundant supplies to the consumer, having regard to the continuance of that process and the maintenance of the industries which supply them.
  Mr. Rankin: If it is wrong to do this in a Government, why transfer the wrong on one individual?
  The Prime Minister: An individual's mind is supposed to be an entity in which all considerations are balanced one with another.
  Mr. Baldwin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the consumers of this country are fed more cheaply than the consumers in any other part of the world? Is it therefore necessary to take any further steps to protect their interests?

  WAR GRAVES (HEADSTONE ENGRAVINGS)
  Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Imperial War Graves Commission is asking for a voluntary contribution of up to £1 from the parents of Royal Air Force officers and men who were killed in action, towards the cost of engraving a personal inscription on their tombstones; and whether he will take steps to prevent similar requests being made in the future.
  The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) on 7th July last year.
  Mr. Janner: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is a very mean request and that it caused considerable pain? Will he see to it that letters of apology are sent, or some kind of apology for this very serious method of approach is offered to the relatives of these unfortunate men who were killed?
  Mr. Head: No, Sir. This subscription is entirely voluntary, and that is clearly stated. Anyone who does not wish to subscribe is under no obligation to do so.
  Mr. Janner: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this is a very mean request, whether the subscription is voluntary or otherwise? Does not he think that the people who suffered in consequence of their children being killed sustained enough damage without being subjected to this ridiculous kind of request?
  Mr. Head: I am informed by the Commission that a considerable number of parents have asked to be allowed to
  1760
  contribute towards an extra and personal inscription.
  Sir P. Spens: Will my right hon. Friend confirm my recollection, as the oldest of the War Graves Commissioners, that this practice was started very soon after the First World War, that it applies only to a special small personal inscription which an individual asks to be put on the stone in addition to the regimental details and so on, and that hundreds, indeed thousands, of them throughout the Empire have been done, that there has been hardly any complaint until the few in the last two years, and that very many relatives welcome the opportunity of being able to have something of a personal sense on the stones?

DOCK STRIKES
Mr. Alfred Robens (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Labour and National Service whether he has any further statement to make on the dock strike.
The Minister of Labour and National Service (Sir Walter Monckton): There has been little change in the situation since my previous statement to the House on Friday. About 1,000 men have gone back to work in the Port of London, but some 700 are now on strike at Manchester. Elsewhere, there is no appreciable change.
The damaging effects of this stoppage on the country's economic life, to which I referred in my previous statement, grow more serious day by day; in particular, the threat to employment in other industries is causing increasing concern.
The Court of Inquiry, which is investigating the causes and circumstances of the dispute, has, in view of the urgency of the situation, submitted to me an Interim Report. I have taken immediate steps to expedite its publication and I hope that it will be available to hon. Members tomorrow afternoon.
Mr. Robens: As this Interim Report is to be published tomorrow, would not the Minister agree that perhaps it would be as well to defer further questions and answers until we have had an opportunity to examine it?
Sir W. Monckton: I should be greatly obliged.

EAST AFRICA (SECRETARY OF STATE'S VISIT)
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a statement on my recent visit to East Africa, with particular reference to the situation in Kenya. I shall, in the near future, say something about the constitutional talks recently held in Uganda under the chairmanship of Sir Keith Hancock.
To Kenya, I brought a message of encouragement from Her Majesty's Government to all who are fighting to bring the present emergency to an end—to the troops, both those from the United Kingdom and the K.A.R., to the R.A.F., the regular Police, the Police Reserve, the Kikuyu Guard—to all the administrative and other services and those engaged in the work of freeing the Kikuyu of this deadly infection, and to all who live in the danger areas.
I saw something of the many loyal Kikuyu, and of the settlers, so many of whom came from Great Britain. No tribute is too great to the courage and determination of all, and not least the women, who are living under this awful threat. I saw, too, the leaders of the Churches, who are playing a vital part in Kenya today.
Members will already have seen reports of the review last week by the War Council of the two years' campaign. Steady progress is now being made and the gangs can no longer obtain supplies and assistance as and when required and have to fight for them. The mounting co-operation with the Government now being shown in the Reserve areas known as the Reserves and the increased strength and efficiency of the Kikuyu Guard, assisted by the security forces, is beginning to tell. As this gathers momentum the terrorists will become more vulnerable and less determined to fight on. I will not attempt to forecast the end of the emergency. The danger of outrages and terrorism still remain, as the singularly brutal murders a few days ago show.
I conceived my duty to be to help in the restoration of confidence in Kenya. I found much fear among Africans that those who had promoted a reign of terror
1762
would be allowed to return once more to areas where the loyal Kikuyu live. The measures which have proved necessary to deal with the emergency include the detention of large numbers of Kikuyu, Embu and Meru. We all regret the need for this action, but I am fully satisfied that it is necessary. Indeed, it is since "Operation Anvil" in Nairobi that the turn of the tide has come.
The Kenya authorities and all the departments concerned—prisons, community development, agriculture, health —and many devoted Christian workers, are striving with vigour and imagination for the return to a sane and civilised outlook of as many as possible of those associated with this barbarous and degrading movement and now held in detention.
I visited Manyani Camp from which, but for the typhoid epidemic, a small number of detainees would already have been released and a larger number drafted to the works camps where the main effort of rehabilitation is being made. I visited two of these works camps. I am certain that this work must be pursued with the greatest drive and determination. We must, however, face the fact that there may well remain, at any rate for a very long time to come, a hard core of fanatical Mau Mau who will be impervious to all that is done to try to help them.
It has been the possibility of the return of these to their former homes that has caused much fear among Africans. They are not only afraid of the return of the great offenders—they fear, also, that those who were the managers and organisers of Mau Mau may return. I was able to assure them that the irreconcilables will not be allowed to return and that arrangements would have to be made for these people which will ensure that this shadow is lifted from the loyal members of the tribe.
I found, too, a certain lack of confidence among some European settlers. I told them that they were in Kenya to stay and that they had nothing to fear for the security of their homes, for themselves, their families and their descendants.
I was glad, also, to see how those Asians who have made Kenya their home and have given their loyalty to the British Crown are anxious to play a constructive part in their country's affairs.

1763
I discussed with the Governor many of the urgent problems connected with the emergency and beyond. Closer administration of the Kikuyu Reserves is going ahead. Twenty-two new sub-stations each containing a district officer, a police officer and in some cases an agricultural and veterinary officer have already been established. Six are under construction and a further 18 are proposed. Two hundred and fifty-nine villages have been built and a further 124 are planned. These are sited so that each is protected by a guard post, and the greatest care is paid to security, hygiene and future expansion. Some already contain schools, dispensaries and community centres. The Home Guards now number 22,000 in 550 posts with 7,000 precision weapons.
This closer administration is having its effect on the terrorists and making their life more difficult. Three hundred and twenty-nine terrorists surrendered between the end of August, 1953, and the end of August, 1954. Between 1st September and 12th October a further 106 surrendered.
The rate of surrender is increasing and the Kenya Government, whose aim is to end the fighting, have always been ready to consider any approach for a mass surrender from gang leaders who are able to influence large numbers of terrorists into surrendering. They are using all possible means to bring this to the notice of the terrorists.
All who know Sir Evelyn Baring and have seen him at work are confident not only in his power to lead Kenya in the problems of today but never to lose sight of the future of Kenya on which the hopes of severel great races are set. The multi-racial Government introduced by Lord Chandos has been an immense stop forward. The presence of unofficial Ministers in the Government has helped to close the ranks against Mau Mau. There is very real harmony in the way in which the Council of Ministers are going about their vital tasks. I believe that the principle of multi-racial Government commands a very wide measure of acceptance in Kenya and we can all draw from this great encouragement for the future.
Mr. J. Griffiths: As one who had the privilege of visiting Kenya recently, I
1764
should like to join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the courage which has been shown by the people of all races there in these very difficult circumstances. I pay tribute particularly to those who are engaged out there. and express our good wishes to those who are about to proceed to Kenya to engage in the important work of rehabilitation.
I should like to ask the Secretary of State a few questions on his statement, first, about surrender. It seems from the information which the right hon. Gentleman has gleaned that the terrorists are now broken up into separate gangs and that they have no cohesive force. Some time ago there was a chance of a surrender which might have brought the end much nearer. Does not the Secretary of State think he ought now to consider the advisability of again proclaiming surrender terms so that surrender might be induced, rather than allowing matters to continue, which may lead to a permanent form of forestry banditry?
I should also like to ask the Secretary of State about the detention camps. There is some concern about the number of people in the detention camps. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it would not be wiser to concentrate smaller numbers of people in individual camps?
On the same point, concern has been expressed about the danger to innocent people, and we now hear from our trade unions that they are deeply concerned about the number of trade union officers who were arrested in "Operation Anvil" and about the slowness of the screening. Will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to this point?
Finally, while I welcome and approve of what has just happened in Kenya, the emergence of a multi-racial Government, upon which the future of Kenya so much depends, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it very desirable, particularly in view of the necessity for providing an alternative leadership for Africans since they are now the only race there left without a political organisation of their own, to provide them with the means whereby they can express their political desires? Will the right hon. Gentleman now consider a proposal which, I gather, has been put before the Governor for the formation of an African political organisation so that the Africans who are in the

1765
multi-racial Government shall be on the same basis politically as the Europeans and the Asians?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will do my best very briefly to answer those most important questions.
With regard to surrender, the offer of August, 1953, remains open to individual terrorists. If it is argued that the fear of execution is a deterrent to surrender, I can say that the Kenya Government have under constant review the possibility of reducing the number of offences for which the death penalty is at present prescribed.
I wholly agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the need to break up the detention camps into smaller units or to move the people into smaller camps as speedily as possible. This would have happened at the biggest camp of all, Manyani, which I visited, but for the distressing outbreak of typhoid.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's question about the trade unions, I am anxious, as we all are, to see the growth of a responsible industrial trade union movement in Kenya. I recognise that at the time of "Operation Anvil" 45 trade union officials were held. I very much regret to say that, so successful has been the Mau Mau infiltration even into trade union circles, that of the 45, 27 have, after screening, been detained on Governor's orders, while 15 have been released, and the remaining three are being speedily investigated.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked me about an African political party. It has been our unhappy experience in Kenya that a nation-wide organisation is liable to get into the wrong hands. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!".] Yes, indeed. All efforts will be made to give guidance and encouragement to divisional or tribal organisations which can then, by a process of growth and federation, become in better days nation-wide organisations.
Mr. J. Griffiths: Since my own view is that the future of the multi-racial Government depends on the co-operation of all races, might I ask the Secretary of State whether it is not important to put the three races in the multi-racial Government on an equal footing? Will he reconsider that matter?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am very conscious of the need for equality of that
1766
kind, but I believe that a lot of responsible African opinion is behind me when I say that it is better to build from smaller foundations than to run the risk of recreating the circumstances from which we are steadily emerging. The Governor has all these points in mind.
Mr. Walker-Smith: What progress is being made or has been made in formulating the arrangements to which my right hon. Friend referred for dealing with the hard core of irreconcilable Mau Mau'? Has any estimate been made as to what their number is likely to be?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. Our policy and our view must be that we must never abandon hope of anybody and we must constantly strive to cure as many as possible of this foul disease. There will be a hard core of irreconcilables and it may be a considerable number, but I should not at this stage like to give any guess as to how many there would be. Naturally, the Kenya Government have under review possible sites where such hard core can be detained.
Mr. Hobson: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether kikuyu Home Guard posts have been established in the Kikuyu locations in Nairobi and whether the boycott of the bus services continues?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The boycott of the bus services has been broken, and the situation in Nairobi does not now justify the establishment of Home Guard posts in the Kikuyu areas. However, I should like further notice of the question.
Mr. Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the difficulties about speeding up the work of screening in the detention camps and providing rehabilitation for work has been the lack of adequate supervisory staff? Does that situation still obtain? If not, is there any special help which Her Majesty's Government can afford Kenya?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is quite true that more suitable staff are needed. The situation is a good deal better than it was, but people with the necessary experience would be most gladly welcomed. I cannot imagine a more worth-while job than to go out to help in Kenya today.
Mr. Bottomley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the only way in which we can end the troubles in Kenya is by

1767
securing the active co-operation of the Africans? Did he take the opportunity of seeing the acting President of the Kenya African Union, who proclaims his interest in political advancement for Africans but equally strongly condemns the Mau Mau movement? Ought he not to be released?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think it would be most dangerous if the Secretary of State attempted to answer about individual Kenya detention orders at this moment. I am absolutely satisfied that the Governor, the Ministers, and the War Council have all these considerations in mind.
Mr. F. M. Bennett: Can my right hon. Friend indicate how many active Mau Mau there are in the field today? Is he satisfied that the security forces that we have there are competent to deal with the Mau Mau both now and in any further action that we can expect to take in the months ahead?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. The answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is "Yes" It is always dangerous to give an estimate, and the only estimate that I can give is that there is an active strength of about 7,000 with a possible 5.000 known as Komerera, who are fugi-
1768
tives both from justice and from Mau Mau.
Mr. Dugdale: Was the right hon. Gentleman correctly reported as having said while he was in Kenya that he was in favour of an extension of immigration of white settlers? Does he not think, as many people on both sides of the House do, that it would be extremely unfortunate to have such an extension of immigration while the present difficulties exist and, in particular, while there is a known shortage of land?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was correctly reported. In the assurances which I gave to the European settlers who are there now and to their descendants, I added also the hope that their numbers would be reinforced. I must add that no greater disservice could be done to the multi-racial society or to Kenya than to attempt to deprecate the need for further European settlement.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order There is no Question before the House.

NEW MEMBER (AFFIRMATION)
The Right Honourable Arthur Creech Jones, for Wakefield.
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FOOD AND DRUGS AMENDMENT [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, and the Food and Drugs (Milk, Dairies and Artificial Cream) Act, 1950, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenses incurred by any Minister of the Crown or Government department in consequence of the provisions of the said Act of the present Session, and

  (b) any increase attributable to the said Act in the moneys to be so provided under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948, or the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954.

  Resolution agreed to.

FOOD AND DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords]
Considered in Committee.
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1. — 4OFF ENCE S IN CONNECTION WITH PREPARATION AND SALE OF INJURIOUS FOODS AND ADULTERATED DRUGS.)
3.52 p.m.
The Chairman: The first Amendment to page 1, line 6, and the third Amendment to line 12, both in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) should, I think, be taken together.
Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, after "shall," to insert:
"add or direct or permit any other person to."
First, I should like to welcome back the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food on his recovery from an attack of influenza. May I say also that we shall expect the hon. Gentleman's full co-operation in endeavouring to improve this Bill?
This House has a very friendly regard for the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, who has suffered many transitions in the past year. We liked the right hon. Gentleman as Minister of Pensions, but then he went to the Board of Trade; since then, he has gone to the Ministry of Agriculture, and now I am
1770
not quite sure what he really is and in what capacity he is sitting on the Front Bench today. I hope that, in order to help us, he will indicate to us on each occasion when he is speaking, whether he speaks as Minister of Agriculture or as Minister of Food; otherwise, we shall be placed in some difficulty in considering the Bill, because both the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food are referred to in it.
It is most unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman, who has the respect of all of us in this House, should be placed in this very invidious position of having to serve two masters, but I hope that, for the purpose of this Bill, he will try-to help us in our discussions by indicating whether he speaks as Minister of Agriculture or in his new responsibility as Minister of Food.
As far as the Bill itself is concerned, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman at once that we on this side of the Committee will endeavour to give him every assistance in seeing the Bill through the Committee stage, because, as we have said before, it has a very respectable parentage, our Amendments are modest ones, and we have not sought, as we might well have done, to go outside the purpose of the Bill. We know the difficulties of getting the Bill through in the present Parliamentary Session, and, therefore, we have not been as ambitious as we might otherwise have been.
At the same time, I must protest again that the Bill received its Second Reading a year ago—in November of last year. Although it has an important object which merits detailed consideration by the Committee, it comes before the House at the very last moment. At the very last minute, when we are faced with the announcement of the date upon which the present Session will end, the Government have introduced an Amendment making a very material alteration to the Bill, but we shall come to that in due course. From the Parliamentary point of view, however, I must protest that a very material reason for the Bill should have been abandoned by the Government with only a few weeks to go to the end of the Session.
To turn to the Amendment, it is a simple one. We welcome this Clause as a considerable improvement on Section I of the principal Act, but the words which

1771
we are now trying to write into the Bill apply to a Section which is to be repealed. We feel that it is not desirable to take out words which are already in the Statute, because that creates the impression that we are restricting the effect of the Act. Secondly, we think that the words in Section I serve a useful purpose and we should like to see them incorporated in Clause 1.
I appreciate that there are some difficulties about the construction to be placed on the word "permit," and that, under the Road Traffic Act, there has been a great deal of case law on the construction of that particular word. If that is the difficulty in which the Government find themselves, and if they will say they will accept the spirit of the Amendment but would like to expand it a little in view of the difficulties aroused about the construction to be placed on the word "permit," that will satisfy us. I therefore hope that the Government will indicate that this is an Amendment which They can accept.
The Minister of Food (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): I should like to thank the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) straightaway for the kind remarks which he made at the outset of his speech, and I should also like to make it clear that, unless otherwise stated, I shall be speaking as Minister of Food. Perhaps I might also be allowed to say today that I do not feel any of the symptoms of schizophrenia spreading over me.
I want also to say at the outset that I have been in my Department only a week, and that I do not claim to be the master of all the details of this extremely technical Bill. I suppose I could start to bluff my way through, but I am not good at bluff. I have not mastered the technique of bluffing, and, therefore, I am going to rely on my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who is a master of this subject, as of many others. I shall listen to the remarks made by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee, and I shall be conferring with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary from time to time. In that way, as the Bill goes through, I hope to learn a great deal more about it, because I have not had the opportunity to study it in the time at my disposal.
1772
I do not think there is anything between us on this Amendment. Our view is that the addition of the words suggested is quite unnecessary; otherwise, we wholly agree with the desire of the hon. Gentleman opposite. I am advised that under the provisions of the Magistrates Courts Act, 1952, of which I have a copy here, a person who aids and abets can clearly be prosecuted, and that any employer who either directs or permits a servant to do something which is an offence clearly renders himself liable to be charged with the offence. Of course, if an employer does direct or permit a servant to do something which is an offence, then he can also be charged under the common law relating to master and servant.
For that reason, I ask the hon. Gentleman opposite, since we shall be trying to meet his point of view as far as we can throughout the Committee stage, not to press the Amendment, because we are quite satisfied that it is unnecessary and that the words included here will bring about everything that the hon. Gentleman wishes.
4.0 p.m.
Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I confess once and for all to being a secret dairyman, that is to say, to having an indirect interest in a dairy company, although I take no part in the direction and management of the business.
I beg the right hon. Gentleman to think again on this small point. The words in our Amendment were put into the 1938 Act to cover—and they would—the kind of case which I will ask the Committee to consider. It arose in connection with a business where the servant sold food in contravention of the Act. He was employed by a one-man company. The virtual owner of the business was a man who owned nearly all the shares. He was the solitary director and he managed the whole business in the name of the company.
There was difficulty in getting him, because the employer was really the company. If there was some active aiding and abetting we could get the actual manager and the owner of the business; but what about permitting?
They have been part of the law for a very long time and if we now take them out the natural tendency will be to look

1773
for the reason. It is better to err on the side of cautious verbosity, and leave in the words.
Mr. Willey: We do not want to prolong the discussion on this point. My hon. and learned Friend has made an effective point about it. If we take the words out, the impression might be created that the provisions of the Bill are more limited than those of the Act.
I concede at once that the words are unnecessary. This could have been our view when the 1938 Bill was going through the House, but sometimes we serve a useful purpose in making clear in the legislation itself what the law is. I will not press the matter further now, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think about this matter. He says that he has had little time to do so, but we hope that he will see that from a commonsense and practical point of view it would be better to leave the words as they stand in the principal Act.
Mr. Amory: I will certainly do that; I will consider the matter again in the light of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. If this assurance is satisfactory, perhaps the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) will now withdraw the Amendment.
Mr. Willey: I am much obliged to the Minister. In view of the assurance he has given that he will look at this point again, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Norman Dodds: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, at the end, to insert:
(2) No person shall abstract or direct or permit any other person to abstract any constituent of food so as to change the nature, substance or quality of the food with intent that the food shall be sold for human consumption in its altered state without notice to the purchaser of the alteration.
The Chairman: It will perhaps be convenient to the Committee to discuss, at the same time, the related Amendments in page 1, line 21, and page 2, line 12.
Mr. Dodds: One of the main documents in the improvement brought about by the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, was the Order dealing with the labelling and
1774
the composition of food. In paragraph 2 (1) of that Order, words similar to those in my Amendment appear. It has always been understood that those words were of great importance, but it is proposed to leave them out of the present Bill.
Many people will be interested to hear the reason for dropping these words. In 1938 it was important that the words should be part of the law; in 1954, people seem to be much more food-conscious than they have ever been before and we ought to enable them to understand why these words are being taken out. The words deal with the abstraction of substances from food and if they remain in the Bill people who handle food will be much more cautious about abstracting anything, and so damaging the food. It will be made known to the world that the food can be examined. I ask the Minister to treat this Amendment with great seriousness, because these words are even more important now than they were in 1938.
The Amendment in line 21 is very similar to this Amendment. I call the Minister's attention to the provision about notice being given to the purchaser on the wrapper or container. If it is objected that this asks too much of manufacturers and processers of food, how is it possible for Canada to be so far ahead of us in matters of this sort? If the Canadians can do it, why cannot we? Is the Minister not aware of the disgust of many Canadians visiting this country when they find how far we lag behind Canada in the important question of the purity of food?
Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: The right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Food will observe from a study of the speeches that were made on the Second Reading of the Bill that we on this side of the Committee regard the Bill as a most useful piece of legislation. My hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) and myself have been pressing the Government ever since they took office to bring forward this legislation. We want Britain's food to be the cleanest and most wholesome in the world. At this early stage in our consideration of the Bill it is safe to say that this aim is shared on both sides of the Committee.

1775
I hope that the Minister will accept these Amendments, and particularly the one in page 2, line 12, which aims at preventing wholesome food from losing the richness of its vitamins and minerals. There was a time when it was thought that human food need consist of no more than proteins, fats, carbohydrates, a little water and a pinch of common salt. It was then envisaged that the meals of the future would be taken in concentrated form. Dinner would consist of a few tablets which would be carried in the waistcoat pocket. Although the meal would not be very enjoyable, time would be saved in swallowing it. Comparatively recently it has been found in the study of nutrition that a variety of mineral salts and of vitamins is necessary for good health.
The disease of rickets has now been banished from our shores. I well remember the time when it was prevalent because children of the very poor had to be content with food of the cheapest and poorest quality. Such food was lacking in vitamins and minerals, and many of the children suffered from rickets. We are glad to see that nowadays our young people have straight limbs and strong bodies. That is a state of the nation's health which we hope will persist indefinitely. However, we must be on our guard.
Food from which vitamins and minerals have been extracted is robbed of much of its nourishment. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give careful consideration to this series of Amendments, and, if he will accept them, we shall then have taken a further step forward towards ensuring the wholesomeness of the nation's food and the protection of the people's health.
Dr. Barnett Stross: The Minister said, very modestly, that he intended to listen patiently to what was said and that he hoped to pick up some knowledge as we proceeded with the discussion of the Bill. I find myself greatly embarrassed by the fear that I may be confusing the right hon. Gentleman by stating that the Amendment in which I am particularly interested—the one which my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr.
Broughton) has just been discussing—is
1776
framed in such words that I cannot press its acceptance.
The reason for that, I am sure, must be obvious to the Parliamentary Secretary, because if we were to pursue an ideal in this way, then, I fear, everyone would have to eat wholemeal bread whether they wanted to or not, and that would not do for everyone in the country. I might even find that, when I went to the fishmonger and asked him to fillet a fish for me, I had forced him into a tort or crime because the calcium and the phosphorus in the bones would be deficient, although I should be all right if I bought a tin of salmon, because in that case the bones would be cooked with the fish and all the mineral salts would be there. I might not ask for sterilised milk because the tiny amount of ascorbic acid found in milk in the springtime is destroyed or diminished by sterilisation.
This Amendment has been placed on the Notice Paper so that we may get some information right at the beginning of our discussion. The information for which I want to ask falls into two parts. One can see from the wording of the Bill itself that inevitably we are taking certain things for granted. This Bill. if we are successful today and tomorrow, would be the clearest advance on the past and would match up to the present needs of our people. But it uses certain terms which I have never been able clearly to define in my own mind, such as
"the health of a person."
What is meant by the phrase in lines 9 and 10 of page 2 of the Bill which reads:
"the probable cumulative effect of articles of substantially the same composition on the health of a person consuming such articles in ordinary quantities."?
I suggest that on the question of what is health we should be given an illustration by the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary, because, by now, the Department must surely be making up its mind. We have reached the stage when we should have made up our minds as to what we mean. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will find it very difficult to do so and that, being a medical man like myself, he is handicapped in the matter, because he is only accustomed to disease and not to health in his thoughts about these matters.

1777
Perhaps we ought to go to an administrator or to a politician. The only person of whom I can think who spoke with conviction on these matters is someone who made a funeral speech over the Athenian dead. It was Pericles who made the speech some time ago, and if I may quote his definition of good health, it goes something like this:
"It is that state of moral, mental and physical well-being which enables any man to face any crisis in life with the utmost facility and grace."
That is perhaps a good illustration of what is meant by health, and I have, I think, added only one word to Pericles' definition. If the Parliamentary Secretary cannot give us the views of his Department on what constitutes good health, will he at least give us some illustration of what is meant by "cumulative effects"?
This Amendment enables me to ask the right hon. Gentleman some questions about jam. I think that we ought to get rid of jam now rather than wait until later, and that we can do it much more shortly here than was done during the discussions in another place. Everybody knows that in another place some very interesting speeches were made on the subject.
4.15 p.m.
I have often put Questions on the matter to the Parliamentary Secretary and to his right hon. and gallant Friend who is now serving in another Department. Some of us have been disturbed about the cheaper forms of jam which used to be described as "full fruit" jam. We do not now have standards of that kind. I believe they have been jettisoned. But what we have in mind is fruit pulp preserved by means of sulphur gas passed over it and stored in that way, and then the sulphur is got rid of by boiling, the pulp is sweetened and its colour is brought back by the use of an appropriate dye.
Sulphur has been used for a very long time as a preservative. The Committee will, I am sure, forgive me when I say that my first memory of it is from reading Homer, because in those days they burned sulphur after battles in order to disinfect the battlefields, and sulphur has been as good as anything else ever since. In jam making the sulphur is all boiled out of the pulp, but the thing that disturbs hon. Members on this side, and something
1778
about which we want more information, is what happens when prolonged boiling has to take place. How much of the vitamin C is destroyed? Is it all destroyed, and how does that process compare with that pursued when making home-made jam where the fresh fruit used is never sulphited? It may be that there is no difference, and, if so, the public ought to know.
The former Minister of Food once said in answer to a Question I addressed to him on the matter that the sulphiting of pulp preserves the vitamin C while the pulp is in storage. If that is so, then it is a very good thing. If, however, it is all destroyed because of the very long boiling that must follow, then it is not such a great advantage. Food manufacturers——
The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is going into rather long detail about something which is not in the Amendment before the Committee.
Dr. Stross: This is a question of the abstraction of minerals and vitamins, and this is the way in which they are abstracted and destroyed. I feel that we should get some reassurance from the Minister which will allay public unrest about the matter, because, as I have said, the subject was discussed, perhaps rather luridly, in another place. With respect, Sir Charles, I thought that I was within the bounds of order, and I promise not to be long on the point. If it be found that there is very little difference between the comparatively short boiling of fresh fruit and the prolonged boiling of sulphited pulp, then we ought to know and, after that, leave the question alone.
With regard to redyeing, one does shrink at the thought of artificial substances such as aniline dyes being used to bring back the colour to the fruit. Here I am reminded of the very beautiful piece of work now being done on frozen fruit, whereby the colour of the fruit is retained by the addition of vitamin C. That is rather a nice piece of work. An interesting point is that in discussing this with the jam manufacturers I asked them why did they not put back some of this vitamin. After all, we fortify white flour and, with the blessing of the Ministry of Health and of the Ministry of Food we are doing all sorts of things to all sorts of substances for therapeutic purposes. I

1779
asked them why the vitamin C which has gone after the prolonged boiling should not be put back.
Their answer is that to bring back the full content of the vitamin destroyed by boiling or by abstracting in this way would mean an extra penny on the pound to the customer. There might be a small additional cost in manufacture. They add that if legislation were passed asking them to do this, or if there were pressure from the Minister, they would do it. I do not dream of asking for that, but here is something which we all eat. If the Minister and his advisers think that the product can be improved by having the vitamin C restored I think that the trade would like to do it and the public would feel benefited by it. The public would certainly be no worse off because of it. I only ask the Minister to consider this matter.
When talking about cumulative effects, can we have some examples from the Ministerial bench of what they mean? Have they in mind the cumulative effect of spraying fruit with lead sprays and the cumulative effect on a child eating iced lollies? Is that what they have in mind? Is it the mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids used for bread softening and so on? As I said when I rose, I speak not to demand that this particular Amendment be accepted in these words but to ask for information.
Mr. Victor Collins: I should like to have information with reference to the application of subsection (5) to the food industry. It seems to me that, as a result of the words:
"… regard shall be had not only to the probable effect of that article on the health of a person …"
a retailer might find himself in a difficult position. One can imagine in July or August, when Derby or Grenadier apples first appear on sale, a retailer may have doubts as to the quantity of green apples it is proper to sell to small boys. That, of course, is an extreme example, but unless this particular subsection is explained and defined there may be considerable difficulty for retailers.
The Chairman: I think the hon. Member is talking about a subsection with which we are not now dealing.
Mr. Collins: I am talking about lines 8 and 9 which have already been referred to, Sir Charles.
The Chairman: We are taking four Amendments together, none of which deals with that.
Mr. Collins: Those very words have already been quoted. I understand that we are dealing with page 2, line 12——
The Chairman: No, that is the point. We are taking something after line 12—at the end.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): In moving his Amendment, the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) based his case, at the outset, on the fact that such words, in approximately the same form, already appear as Section 2 of the 1938 Act. In effect, his first question was, "Why omit it?" For a reason which I shall give to the hon. Member, Section 2 has been found to be unworkable. It defines the effects of abstracting from any food, and so on
"without notice to the purchaser of the alteration;"
At that moment, of course, there is no purchase. It subsequently emerged, as the hon. Gentleman realised, that a sale was necessary to create a purchase and so to bring Section 2 into operation. When a sale has taken place it is then possible to act under Section 3, which deals with the prohibition against the sale of any food or drug
"… not of the nature … substance … or … quality … demanded."
For that reason, therefore, Section 2 of the 1938 Act has not worked.
The significance of what the hon. Member himself now recognises is that he seeks to reinsert Section 2 of the 1938 Act—with a variation; he omits from his wording the notion of injury to the purchaser. My main answer to him, bearing in mind that practical difficulty of the operation of Section 2 of the 1938 Act, is that the approach in this Bill is first to distinguish between the additions which are injurious to health and those which are not. Additions injurious to health are banned absolutely, with or without label. There is here an absolute prohibition on an addition, subtraction, on processing, and so on, injurious to health.

1781
In the second category, additions, etc., which are not injurious to health are dealt with—a sale having taken place—in Clause 2, it being a defence, if I may quote the words:
"… for the person charged to prove that the operation in question was not carried out fraudulently, and that the article was sold having attached thereto a notice of adequate size, distinctly and legibly printed and conspicuously visible …"
In its present form, in fact, the Bill achieves what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I can assure him that we have not sought to weaken the law in this respect. We have sought to make a distinction between the addition, etc., injurious to health and that which is not injurious to health, and we have sought to deal with the additions which are not injurious to health by Section 3 of the 1938 Act—in other words, in the way which experience has shown it has been necessary so to deal with them.
The hon. Member's second Amendment is, of course, related to the first, and perhaps I need not deal with it in detail, as it is covered by the same argument.
Mr. Dodds: May I ask for an answer on the point about wrappers in that particular Amendment?
4.30 p.m.
Dr. Hill: I am not at this moment dealing with what should appear on the wrapper—we shall come to that subsequently. I am dealing with the defence against an allegation that there has been an addition, although not injurious to health.
The Amendment of the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) was dealt with kindly but firmly by his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). It has, I am afraid, to be dealt with in that way because, as was pointed out, if it were accepted it would create so difficult a position, in prohibiting the boning of fish or the sterilisation of certain articles which would involve the destruction or abstraction of vitamin C.
The hon. Gentleman raised several other associated points. I do not think he was serious when he suggested that we should debate the proper definition of the health of a person. All I can say is that the words in their simplest form,
"the health of a person"
1782
and
"the probable cumulative effect of articles"
are in the Bill and will be for the courts to decide. I imagine that they are likely to reach a speedier conclusion than doctors who may disagree on this matter.
The hon. Gentleman referred to substances coming into the cumulative category, and one has in mind in particular coal tar dyes and lead. I will not follow the hon. Gentleman into a dissertation on vitamin C in jams and the effects of sulphur dioxide, for I feel that it would lead us beyond the scope of the debate at this moment, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is very real point in the subject that he has raised and we are considering the problem. I am particularly interested in his suggestion of the reinsertion of vitamin C and his estimate of the cost. I will see that his suggestions are considered.
I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) succeeded in making his point, but if it will save further debate let me say that what we are concerned with is to be found in Clause 4, namely, substances which are added by manufacturers to foods. We have not dared to deal with the cumulative effect of the prolonged consumption by small boys of large quantities of apples.
Mr. Collins: What is the position of a retailer of fruit when a substance has been added by way of preparation, such as in polishing apples or something like that, which happens particularly with imported articles?
Dr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman is raising a much wider question which we shall meet frequently in the course of the consideration of this Bill, and I suggest that I should deal with it as and when it arises.
I hope that the hon. Member for Dartford will accept the position that we are not in any way weakening the law, but are making it work in the light of experience.
Mr. Mitchison: I regard that as a rather remarkable and unsatisfactory reply. I have a good deal of sympathy with the Parliamentary Secretary. It is not quite certain what his functions are, but to deal with a couple of Amendments about abstracting things from food by referring solely to additions seems to

1783
me to reveal a certain perversity of intellect. I should like to call his attention to the fact that the two Amendments in which I personally am interested deal not with adding anything to anything but, if I may take him back to his school days, with the process of subtraction.
There is already in the Bill a provision about abstracting to the prejudice of the purchaser, but we are not concerned with that point in these Amendments. What we are concerned with is a rather different matter. It is honesty to the consumer. The point here is that if we take something away we may not necessarily cause the purchaser a grievous belly ache or any other chronic or acute form of ill-health, but we may be selling him something different from what he expected to get and we may be doing that under the name of the original article.
I am very glad to see the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee here—not, I hope, in his official capacity—and I think he will agree with me that this has gone a long way already. I believe it is possible to buy a thing called a "hot dog." It may be hot, but I have always understood that it was not a dog. Similarly, one can purchase and consume without undue irreverence "angels on horseback." They have no angelic character, I believe, and do not sit, in the best circles, on a horse. To these sorts of queer phrases we have gradually become accustomed. They are, I find, very confusing, and they are sometimes made worse by being turned into French or even into a kind of hybrid Anglo-Gaelic peculiar to the catering trade.
But surely what we are dealing with today is much simpler than that. People buy some perfectly well-known and ordinary thing, and if for some reason or another an essential part of it has been taken out, surely it is not altogether unreasonable to provide that they should be told so. I do not see why one should make very heavy weather of this Amendment. I would not insist upon the use of one form of language or another. The substantial point is this: is it necessary to make it a matter prejudicial to health before making it obligatory to call the purchaser's attention to the fact that something essential has been taken out of the food described?
1784
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will, for a change, do a little multiplication and think again. I hope he will consider whether it is not in line with progress to prohibit abstraction in this form without giving notice. That is all it amounts to.
Mr. Frederic Harris: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman give one example of the type of commodity to which he is referring?
Mr. Mitchison: I do not think there is any point in giving one example, for hundreds of them must be obvious to anybody. There are many examples of something being taken out of a perfectly well-known food so as to change its quality, condition, and so forth.
All we are asking is that the purchaser should be told that he is not buying what he might think he is, because he is not. I cannot see anyone objecting to the morality or the good sense of an attitude of that kind. I should have thought that the ordinary consumer is entitled to a bit more protection than he has had in the past, and a good deal more protection than he appears likely to have from the Bill as it stands.
Mr. George Darling: I was not very happy when it was decided to take these three Amendments together. The third Amendment is obviously a probing Amendment, seeking information. The first two Amendments are designed, whether adequately or ham-fistedly, to get some protection for the consumer. This is a point which we shall raise repeatedly throughout the Bill.
It is essential—it is, indeed, one of the main purposes of the Bill—to give the consumer protection against fraudulent practices and against something which might be injurious to his health. All that we are asking for here—and I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that the form of words is probably open to amendment—is an assurance from the Minister that in all these matters the consumer is to be told clearly what he is buying, and that on the labelling and the packaging there shall be no misleading advertisement or statement of any kind.

1785
In his intervention a moment or two ago, the Parliamentary Secretary said that this point was coming on later. We question that. I know the part of the Bill to which he is referring, but as we intend to raise this matter repeatedly I should like the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that we shall not be satisfied with anything less than full protection for the consumer. If a consumer goes into a shop—and there is no point in giving examples, because it may not happen at the moment but in the future I am not concerned with examples now but with what will happen in the future—and asks for an article which has a common description, he may find that, because of something that has happened in the making of the food which has resulted in some element being extracted, the description is completely misleading.
Under such circumstances, the consumer has to be protected. If a vital constituent is taken out in the course of processing, then the consumer should be told. Even if the Parliamentary Secretary thinks that the point we have in mind is fully covered, I would ask him to bear in mind that we shall look very carefully at the references to which he has hinted when we come to that part of the Bill.
Mr. Willey: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said something about the hon. Gentleman being half a Parliamentary Secretary. If he is half a Parliamentary Secretary he is a fly half. I think he gave a very good account of the position which will prevail if this Bill becomes law. He gave a lucid explanation of the effect of the Bill as it stands, but having heard my hon. Friends on the subject, too, I must say that I think they are also right.
This shows the essential difficulty of legislating by reference. It is all very well if I get the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow morning and spend an hour and a half in the Library and thus satisfy myself that the purposes sought by my hon. Friends are met by this Bill read in conjunction with the principal Act. But why should I he expected to do that? Why should any trader be expected to do that? Why should any medical officer of health be expected to do it?
I gather that there is no difference in principle on the first Amendment. I understood the Parliamentary Secretary
1786
to give my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) the assurance that his desires are being met. But they are being met in a very obscure, roundabout sort of way, which is the delight of Parliamentary draftsmen. After all, this Bill, which has in itself an important purpose to serve, calls attention to the Government's intentions about food hygiene. I should have thought for that reason that it would be far better to say at once that not only can an assurance be given that the Bill as drafted would have this effect, but to say, "We will accept the first two Amendments. We might have to redraft them, but we think it would be desirable in the first Clause of this Bill to make it quite clear that these powers reside with the Government."
From what has been said by the Parliamentary Secretary I gather that he has no objection to the first two Amendments which we are discussing together. His attention was drawn to the Canadian practice, and I would just emphasise that this business of giving notice is a very important one, not only for the public but for medical officers of health, sanitary inspectors, public analysts and such-like professional people. There should be this notice so that they can make the proper inquiries.
4.45 p.m.
In the light of that, and having agreed with what the Parliamentary Secretary said and very largely with what my hon. Friends have said, why cannot we get on with the Bill? We can by the Parliamentary Secretary saying that a case has been made out and he will accept the first two Amendments. It would be far better to avoid this complicated business of legislation by reference. A case has been made out in support of these Amendments, and in an appropriate place in the Bill the Government ought to undertake to make clear their intentions as to possessing powers to provide that where an abstraction is made and that changes the nature and the quality of the substance, then notice should be given. If the Parliamentary Secretary would do that, then we could proceed with our consideration of the Bill.
I agree that the third Amendment is a probing Amendment, and as there have been no notes of protest from behind me I imagine that the Parliamentary Secretary has satisfied the probers. But cannot

1787
he satisfy us on the first two Amendments by saying that it would be far better to make them part of the present Clause? There is no disagreement about the principle, and, therefore, I suggest that the Amendments should be accepted.
Dr. Hill: I quite appreciate the difficulty, to which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has referred, of having to refer to the parent Act. To this extent I can assure him that it is the Government's intention to introduce a consolidation Bill at the earliest possible moment.
On the point raised by the hon. Member I want to remind the House what the law now is and what will remain the law. Section 3 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, says:
"If a person sells to the prejudice of the purchaser any food or drug which is not of the nature, or not of the substance, or not of the quality, of the food or drug demanded by the purchaser, he shall, subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, be guilty of an offence."
What is provided for is the rewriting of an existing defence in Clause 2 of the Bill where it says that in such proceedings
"… it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that the operation in question was not carried out fraudulently, and that the article was sold having attached thereto a notice of adequate size, distinctly and legibly printed and conspicuously visible, stating explicitly the nature of the operation, or was sold in a wrapper or container displaying such a notice."
That will be the law and that is a satisfactory position, bearing in mind that where anything has been done to render food injurious it is an offence without qualification, special difficulties or anything else. I submit to the Committee that the situation is satisfactory, and what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) has rightly and properly asked for has been met by the law as it is today with the Amendments that are proposed by this Bill.
Mr. Darling: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why the law is not being carried out if it is so satisfactory? Why can these people manufacture food from which important elements have been taken without informing the public?
Dr. Hill: I am not maintaining that the 1938 Act in itself is satisfactory.
Mr. Darling: That was the hon. Gentleman's argument a moment ago.
Dr. Hill: No.
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman said it was satisfactory.
Dr. Hill: I was referring to Section 3, but in my earlier remarks I referred to Section 2 of the 1938 Act and said that in working it out it had proved to be unworkable because of the difficulty of reference to a purchaser without the event of a sale being contemplated. One of the weaknesses of the 1938 Act is that Section 2 does not work.
Mr. Darling: Nor does Section 3.
Mr. Somerville Hastings: Certain substances may be taken from a food, but they do not render it injurious. Their absence reduces its nutritive quality. What about that kind of thing?
Dr. Hill: In the case of substances altered—if I may use that word to cover the whole series of changes—but not rendered injurious, it is under Section 3 of the 1938 Act as modified by Clause 2 of the Bill an offence to do it, but there is a defence provided, that what was done was not fraudulently done, and that the changes were referred to on the label. That seems to me to be reasonable.
Dr. Stross: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten another defence mentioned in Section 4 of the parent Act, namely, that
"… the addition was required for the production or preparation of the food or drug as an article of commerce in a state fit for carriage or consumption."
We are not using such terms in the Bill. Are we assuming we can have changes in basic foodstuffs if they are alterations to make them fit for carriage?
Dr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman will see from the Bill and Amendments down that we are changing the character of the defences in Section 4. The general effect will be to strengthen the law on this point.
Amendment negatived.
Sir Leslie Plummer: I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, to leave out subsection (6).
The Deputy-Chairman: It may be convenient to consider with this Amendment the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), in Clause 5, page 5, line 35, after "say," to insert:
"paragraph (b) of the proviso to section six."
Sir L. Plummer: I am sure that arrangement will be convenient. One of the purposes of the Clause is to prohibit the manufacturer from advertising any product which is, as a result of additions, to use the Parliamentary Secretary's word, injurious to the health of the purchaser. The exemption provided in subsection (6) gives a defence to persons whose habitual business it is to publish or arrange for the publication of advertisements, and the defence is that that is their habitual business. My submission is that it is in the interests of good food that that defence should not be allowed.
There are four classes of people affected. There is the advertising agent who handles the advertisement and places it with a newspaper and acts as the agent of the manufacturer; there is the proprietor of the newspaper or periodical that publishes the advertisement; there is the billposter who puts a form of advertisement on the hoardings at the request of the advertising agent at the instruction of the advertiser; and finally there will be, of course, the programme company that introduces the advertiser's announcement on the forthcoming commercial television network.
Those people would, by virtue of subsection (6), have an adequate defence in explaining that they did all this in the course of their business. This would, of course, be a defence for an unscrupulous advertising agent who, unlike the majority of advertising agents, deliberately tried to further the sale of articles that were injurious.
The Minister will not mind if I say that I am certain he is innocent of the ways in which newspapers work, and he will not mind if I give him a little information about that. The majority of advertising agents in this country are reputable and honest people, although most of them are misguided in wanting commercial television. However, I should be out of order if I were to try to pursue that matter.
1790
They are reputable and responsible people who lend themselves to the task of encouraging the sale of their clients' goods, and they take an active and detailed interest in those goods. They visit the factories, they look at the products, they study the marketing of them, they pay regard to the packaging of them. They do a very competent job in helping the sale of the goods, and no reputable advertising agent in this country would lend himself to misrepresentation or lend himself to the selling of an article that he thought injurious.
However, there is a minority of advertising agents who are not in that category at all, a minority whose interest is to make what the Americans call a "fast buck," to make as much money as they can as quickly as they can, without due regard to other considerations. Such an advertising agent has no scruple in writing copy that is misrepresentation and in helping the sale of goods, even though he does not even find out whether they are injurious or not. He simply accepts the word of the advertiser that they are not. Such an agent could go to the court and say, "It is my business to arrange this advertising, and that is my defence."
The defence provided in this subsection would encourage that class of advertising agent to continue in business, whereas we ought to be making it as difficult as possible for them to remain in business. It should be the job of an advertising agent, as indeed it is the job of a reputable advertising agent, to satisfy himself that what he is saying for his client is truthful and inoffensive.
This subsection is an encouragement to advertising agents of the lower category of dishonest advertising agents to be quite reckless, because they can advertise products they know to be injurious to health, as many of them are. Anybody who likes to delve into the advertising columns of our seamier newspapers will see that that is true. Were advertising agents encouraged not to be careful in accepting clients' advertisements, it would be a very bad thing.
Let me turn to the newspapers. The reputable newspapers of the country take very great care indeed in seeing that certain classes of advertisements, which are injurious to the pockets or the health of their readers, are not accepted. Every newspaper considers with the utmost care

1791
the details of financial advertisements and prospectuses that are offered to them. They exercise very considerable control also over advertisements for patent medicines, the sorts of things that are clearly injurious.
That sort of control should be exercised, too, over the advertisements of the classes of goods covered by the Clause. The newspapers should exercise exactly the same powers of censorship, control and examination over advertisements for foodstuffs as they do over advertisements for patent medicines and financial advertisements. Why should they not do so? Newspapers are not forced to accept advertisements. They accept them quite voluntarily. It is their business to do this, and they are surely entitled, as they must in the case of their news columns, to see to it that what they tell their readers is as true and honest a representation as they can make it.
So it should be their responsibility to see that their pages are free from advertisements of injurious products as described in this Clause, and they should pay a penalty if they fail in this respect. I know it will be said that this will be very difficult, but many of the provisions of the Bill will create difficulties, and when we are considering the public health we ought not to pay too much attention to what is said about difficulties.
5.0 p.m.
There are in existence such organisations as the Advertising Association, the Newspaper Proprietors Association and the Newspaper Society, which are very wealthy and very powerful, and it would be easy for them to set up a national committee to work in conjunction with the central food hygiene council, which some of my hon. Friends are proposing, or the food research advisory council, which is suggested by some hon. Members opposite, to provide a white list and a black list of food advertisers.
After all, the Advertising Association exists, among other reasons, to tell its members what is good and what is bad in advertising and what should and should not be accepted. The dissemination of such information, particularly if assistance were given by the Ministries of Food and Agriculture, should create no substantial difficulties which would outweigh the very definite public benefits to
1792
be obtained by the deletion of subsection (6).
Mr. Amory: I should like to say at once at this stage how we look at the matter. Clause 1 makes it an offence to advertise for sale for human consumption any food which has been rendered injurious to health by addition, subtraction, or treatment. That is right; there can be no question about it.
Our difficulty with the Amendment is that it seems to throw an unreasonable onus on the firm which is in business purely for advertising. We believe it right that the onus should he fairly and squarely on the manufacturer. We cannot see how the advertiser can in practice satisfy himself that nothing has been done to the food which will be injurious to health. In many cases it is a very technical matter indeed to assure oneself that nothing injurious has happened to food. If we are to be reasonable to the advertiser, I cannot see where in practice his sources of such information would be.
Hon. Members may say that there is an analogy between the position of the advertiser and that of a publisher in the case of libel or obscenity. However, I feel that those cases are much less technical and that the publisher is in a much better position than the advertiser would be in this instance to say whether he would be in order in going ahead.
I am sure it would be unwise—I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) will agree—. to put the onus on the advertiser, whose business it is to advertise and to receive copy from his clients. I am sure that we must concentrate upon putting the onus where it should be, on the shoulders of the manufacturer. Therefore, I am afraid that I must resist the Amendment.
Mr. G. Darling: I do not think the technique involved here is quite as clear to the Minister as it might be. Very few manufacturers provide their advertising agents with copy. It is the imaginative people in the advertising agency who think up the slogans and, very frequently, the misleading statements.
Mr. Amory: I may have used the wrong term technically. The manufacturers normally supply the advertising agents with some basic information on which the advertisers base their copy.
Mr. Darling: I appreciate that point, but if the Amendment were accepted a great deal of responsibility would then be thrown upon the publisher of the material, such as a newspaper, a television company or a billposting company, and also the advertiser. By that means we should give further protection to the consumer.
I am assuming that at least favourable consideration will be given to our proposals for the setting up of advisory councils, but whether that is so or not, some kind of advisory body will have to be provided to carry through what we are suggesting. If the Amendment were accepted, advertising agents and publishers would, in their own interests, have to go to these advisory bodies, who would have access to research departments, and ask them, "What can we say about this product that will be truthful?" This would be another attack upon the false and misleading claims which are frequently made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) said that most reputable advertising agents are perfectly honest and do not make misleading statements. But, of course, they do. Eight detergents are on the market, and all eight are advertised as being capable of washing clothes whiter than the rest. Seven of those claims must be untrue. We have the same thing about claims made on behalf of breakfast cereals. The Parliamentary Secretary might enlighten the House about the food value of breakfast cereals; that would be most interesting. Misleading claims are made. I agree that most of them are not very serious and that no one will be hurt by the false claim that a breakfast cereal has nutritive value; but other claims are made which are far more serious.
We want all the time to give the consumer the fullest protection against misleading claims, and one way to do that is to make the publisher of advertisements and the advertising agent, as well as the manufacturer, keen to ensure that only the truth is told. What is wrong with insisting that everybody in the chain of events should tell the truth? That is all that we are asking. We are putting a premium on truth, and the Government seem to object to it. Subsection (6) should be dropped and everyone making a claim would then have to make
1794
sure that the claim was truthful. That is the whole purpose of the Amendment, and I am sure that, in the light of that, the Government will accept it.
Mr. F. P. Bishop: I am glad that my right hon. Friend has not accepted the Amendment. I am sure that we all agree with what has just been said, that everyone concerned with the advertising of goods for sale should do his reasonable utmost to make sure that the advertisement is truthful. However, there is surely a limit—[Laughter]—not to the attempt to make sure that the statements made are truthful but to the obligation to be imposed upon a person who handles either goods or statements in the ordinary course of his business.
It is plainly impossible for a newspaper carrying many hundreds of classified advertisements every day to investigate detailed technical facts about the goods advertised. It is beyond the power of a publication to do that. To attempt to impose a liability like that on a publisher—I will say a word about the advertising agent in a moment—would be to expose him to something quite unreasonable, for if he attempted to comply with it strictly it would bring normal business activities almost to a standstill. It would be analogous to expecting the proprietor of a bookstall—in some cases the law has gone to the unreasonable length of appearing to require the proprietor of a bookstall to do so—to read word by word every publication that he offers for sale.
As my hon. Friend said, the newspapers—at least, the reputable ones—do their best through their own organisation to ensure that nothing which appears in their advertising columns is untrue. They should be left to carry on doing the best they can through their own organisation, and not have imposed upon them by the House of Commons a burden which it is impossible for them to carry. I am not quite sure, with regard to the advertising agent, whether this Clause gives him as much protection as he should have. I do not know what the words
"a person … received the advertisement for publication in the ordinary course of business"
mean.
Of course, the advertising agent does not normally receive the advertisement for publication. He receives facts and information supplied to him by the

1795
manufacturer of the article upon which, normally, he himself drafts the advertisement which ultimately appears. Certainly there is a duty upon him to make the utmost inquiries he can into the truth of the facts that are submitted to him.
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend, or the Parliamentary Secretary, how he explains this provision as applying to the advertising agent, who does not merely receive the advertisement for publication, but receives the facts upon which he bases the advertisement which he himself has probably drafted.
Sir L. Plummer: If the hon. Gentleman goes on to read subsection (6), he will find that it says
"or arrange for the publication of, advertisements."
It surely is the job of the advertising agent to arrange for the publication.
Mr. Bishop: In arranging for the publication of the advertisement, he receives the advertisement for publication in the ordinary course of business, and I should like to know whether this is limited to the publisher who receives the advertisement already drafted and who has merely to put it into the paper and publish it, or whether it covers also the activities of the advertising agent who may himself have some part, and perhaps a large part, in the drafting of the advertisement for publication.
Mr. Mitchison: I think that the Committee should bear in mind in regard to food and drugs legislation generally that it quite often proceeds on the basis of absolute liability apart from knowledge. Prosecutions, for instance, under Section 2 of the 1938 Act do not require knowledge by the seller. There can be a conviction without any question of knowledge, and the reason for that. I suggest, is the overwhelming importance which has always been attached to providing pure food for the public.
It seems that the position here is rather curious. If I am right—and, if not, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me—there is a very similar provision to this, referring to a person whose business it is to publish, or arrange for the publication of, advertisements, and receiving them for publication in the ordinary course of business, under Section 6 (2, b) of the 1938 Act.
1796
The position there is that protection is given, either in that case or in the case where the person concerned did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained, that the advertisement was of a misleading character. Either of these circumstances constitutes a defence. The odd thing is that that Section has, I believe, been suspended during the operation of the Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations, 1943.
In paragraph 1 (2) of these Regulations we find this:
"A person who publishes, or is a party to the publication of, an advertisement … which falsely describes any food … shall be guilty of an offence … unless he proves that' he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained that the advertisement was of such a character as aforesaid."
That is to say that, for the purpose of these Regulations, those who were responsible for drafting them chose that alternative.
The Government, for some reason or another, have rejected the alternative that was chosen by the Defence Regulations and have taken the other alternative. I should have thought that the two things together would have done no harm to anyone, but that if one had to choose there would be a great deal to be said for keeping the rather higher standard which is set under the Defence Regulations.
5.15 p.m.
I say "keeping the two together," because I feel that in food and drugs regulations it is exceedingly important that we should take every possible precaution to get pure food. It has always been recognised that we cannot convict someone without knowledge of what he is doing. That has been the whole practice in this matter, and in a few other fields, too. Therefore, it would not be at all limited in a matter of this sort to the advertising agent, who may do an incredible amount of damage.
He uses a powerful weapon. The thing which in fact he assists to spread will go very much further, and it is reasonable, I think, to make certain that he either assumes an absolute liability or, if his liability is to be limited, that there must be some sort of personal responsibility about it. I do not regard it as sufficient to say that the advertising agent or advertising person is exempt because it is his

1797
business to publish advertisements or arrange for their publication.
I do not see why he should have that quite exceptional protection. That is not the protection which he has had up to date. Under the Defence Regulations he has had to show due diligence in verifying the truth of the advertisement, and now, apparently, that is not to be the case any longer, and this curious provision is substituted.
I feel that the Government and the party opposite are being much too tender to the advertising and publishing business. I take up what the right hon. Gentleman said just now, that this is very like the law of libel in some ways. If the same sort of principle is to be allowed in the case of libels, where are we going, and does the party opposite really stand for it?
What would happen would be this. Simply because it is a man's business to publish this, that or the other and to arrange for publication, he is not to be liable for publishing a libel. Of course he is liable. It is no defence to say that it is his business to publish newspapers or even advertisements, and it is not even a defence to say that he did not know anything about it. It is sometimes impossible for a newspaper to verify every statement given to it with regard to every possible sort of person.
It is for advertisers to verify this kind of advertising, and I should have thought that, if we put this kind of liability on publishers and printers with regard to libels, it is very much more important with regard to the purity of food and the health of the public that there should be a similar liability here. Therefore, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should look again at this Amendment and consider whether he is not being altogether too kind by what he proposes in the Bill, and that he should see whether the provisions cannot be strengthened in the interests of the public and the vital importance of clean food.
Dr. Edith Summerskill: I do not want to add very much to what has already been said by my hon. Friends, who have put the case for the Amendment. I only want to add this to the Parliamentary Secretary. As he knows, we are not trying to establish a new principle today. This principle has been established before, and quite rightly. We are only asking for it to be embodied in this new Bill.
The argument put by the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop) would be relevant if we were concerned with any other commodity, but the commodity with which we are concerned this afternoon is the nation's food. What we on this side of the Committee are doing is to give adequate protection to the consumer.
I am glad to see that the Minister of Health is present; he was courteous enough, I am informed, to attend the whole of the Second Reading of the Bill in July. What we are anxious to do is to give the consumer the maximum protection. I think it would be agreed that food technology has advanced to such an extent that the consumer needs the maximum protection. Therefore, we ask that not only should the manufacturer face up to his responsibilities, but that the advertiser and the publisher also should be concerned about the commodity which they are advertising. In fact, we are asking that the consuming public should have a second line of defence.
I am surprised that the Minister has not accepted an Amendment which is, I should have thought, scientifically desirable, and desirable on the grounds of common sense, but as he has thought fit to refuse it, I must ask my hon. Friends to divide against the Government.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 222.

Division No. 216.]

AYES

15.22 p.m.

Alport, C. J. M.

Barber, Anthony

Black, C. W.

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Barlow, Sir John

Boothby, Sir R. J. G.

Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Bossom, Sir A. C.

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J

Beach, Maj. Hicks

Bowen, E. R.

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn. W.)

Bennett, F. M. (Reading, M.)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

Baldwin, A. E.

Birch, Nigel

Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

Banks, Col. C.

Bishop, F. P.

Browne, Jack (Govan)

Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Peyton, J. W. W.

Bullard, D. G.

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Pickthorn, K. W. M

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Pitman, I. J.

Burden, F. F. A.

Hughes-Hallet, Vice-Admiral J.

Powell, J. Enoch

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Campbell, Sir David

Hurd, A. R.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L

Cary, Sir Robert

Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

Profumo, J. D.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

Raikes, Sir Victor

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

Ramsden, J. E.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

Rayner, Brig. R

Cole, Norman

Iremonger, T. L.

Redmayne, M.

Colegate, W. A.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Rees-Davies, W. R

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Johnson, Erie (Blackley)

Remnant, Hon. P.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Jones, A. (Hall Green)

Renton, D. L. M.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

Ridsdale, J. E.

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Kaberry, D.

Robertson, Sir David

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Keeling, Sir Edward

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Crouch, R. F.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Robson-Brown, W.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Kerr, H. W.

Roper, Sir Harold

Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

Lambert, Hon. G.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Davidson, Viscountess

Lancaster, Col. C. G

Russell, R. S.

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Leather, E. H. C.

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Deedes, W. F.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

Scott, R. Donald

Doughty, C. J. A.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R

Drews, Sir C.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Shepherd, William

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)

Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Duthie, W. S.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Longden, Gilbert

Snadden, W. McN.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Erroll, F. J.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Soames, Capt. C.

Fell, A.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Spearman, A. C. M

Finlay, Graeme

McAdden, S. J.

Speir, R. M.

Fisher, Nigel

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Fletcher, Sir Walter (Bury)

McKibbin, A. J.

Stevens, Geoffrey

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

Ford, Mrs. Patricia

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Fort, R.

Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Storey, S.

Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Studholme, H. G.

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

Summers, G. S.

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

Glover, D.

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Godber, J. B.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Marples, A. E.

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Gough, C. F. H.

Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

Gower, H. R.

Maude, Angus

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

Graham, Sir Fergus

Maudling, R.

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

Gridley, Sir Arnold

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

Tilney, John

Grimond, J.

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Turner, H. F. L.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Mellor, Sir John

Turton, R. H.

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Molson, A. H. E,

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Vane, W. M. F.

Harden, J. R. E.

Moore, Sir Thomas

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Hare, Hon. J. H.

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Vosper, D. F.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Wade, D. W.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Neave, Airey

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

Nicholls, Harmar

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

Wall, Major Patrick

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Heath, Edward

Nugent, G. R. H.

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony

Watkinson, H. A.

Higgs, J. M. C.

Oakshott, H. D.

Webbe, Sir H. (London & Wesminster)

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

Odey, G. W.

Wellwood, W.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Williams, Rt Hon. Charles (Torquay)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Holt, A. F.

Page, R. G.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Hope, Lord John

Partridge, E.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Wood, Hon. R.

Horobin, I. M.

Perkins, Sir Robert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hersbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Peto, Brig. C. H. M

Mr. Wills and Mr. Robert Allan.

1800

1801

NOES

Acland, Sir Richard

Hargreaves, A.

Paton, J.

Albu, A. H.

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

Pearson, A.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Hastings, S.

Peart, T. F.

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Hayman, F. H.

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)

Popplewell, E.

Awbery, S. S.

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

Porter, G.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Herbison, Miss M.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Balfour, A.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Proctor, W. T.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J,

Hobson, C. R.

Pryde, D. J.

Bartley, P.

Holman, P.

Rankin, John

Beattie, J.

Holmes, Horace

Reeves, J.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Hoy, J. H.

Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

Bence, C. R.

Hubbard, T. F.

Reid, William (Camlachie)

Beswick, F.

Hudson, James (Eating, N.)

Rhodes, H.

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Richards, R.

Blackburn, F.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Blenkinsop, A.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Boardman, H.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Bowden, H. W.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Ross, William

Bowles, F. G.

Janner, B.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

Short, E. W.

Brockway, A. F.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Jeger, Mrs. Lena

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Skeffington, A. M.

Burke, W. A.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Burton, Miss F. E.

Keenan, W.

Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

Callaghan, L. J,

King, Dr. H. M.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Carmichael, J.

Kinley, J.

Sparks, J. A.

Champion, A. J.

Lawson, G. M.

Steele, T.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Clunie, J.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Collick, P. H.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Collins, V. J.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Logan, D. G.

Stross, Dr. Barnett

Cove, W. G.

MacColl, J. E.

Summerskill, Rt, Hon. E.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

McGhee, H. G.

Swingler, S. T.

Grossman, R. H. S.

McInnes, J.

Sylvester, G. O.

Daines, P.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

McLeavy, F.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Manuel, A. C.

Timmons, J.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Tomney, F.

De Freitas, Geoffrey

Mason, Roy

Turner-Samuels, M.

Deer, G.

Mayhew, C. P.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Delargy, H. J.

Mellish, R. J.

Usborne, H. C.

Dodds, N. N.

Messer, Sir F.

Viant, S. P.

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bremwich)

Mikardo, Ian

Warbey, W. N.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Mitchison, G. R.

Watkins, T. E.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Monslow, W.

Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Moody, A. S.

Weitzman, D.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Morley, R.

West, D. G.

Fienburgh, W.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Wheeldon, W. E.

Finch, H. J.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewitham, S.)

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Follick, M.

Mort, D. L.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Forman, J. C.

Moyle, A.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Mulley, F. W.

Wigg, George

Gibson, C. W.

Murray, J. D.

Willey, F. T.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Nally, W.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Greenwood, Anthony

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

Grey, C. F.

Oldfield, W. H.

Willis, E. G.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Oliver, G. H.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Oswald, T.

Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

Hale, Leslie

Padley, W. E.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Wyatt, W. L.

Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Yates, V. F.

Hamilton, W. W.

Pannell, Charles

Hannan, W.

Pargiter, G. A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hardy, E. A.

Parker, J.

Mr. Wilkins and Mr. John Taylor.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
5.30 p.m.
Mr. John Eden: I shall not detain the Committee for very long, but I want to say a few words upon the more general question of chemical manipulation. I know that the hon. Member for Dartmouth (Mr. Dodds) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) have already raised several points in regard to this matter, particularly in the Second Reading debate on 23rd July. I am also aware that many points have been raised by several noble Lords in another place, and that the Parliamentary Secretary is well aware of the arguments which have already been propounded. In opening the debate on 23rd July, he said:
"Now that chemical substances are added to food, there is the problem that it is not easy—in many cases, it is not possible—to determine in advance what may be the long-term effects of the regular consumption of small quantities of new chemicals."—[QFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1954 Vol. 530, c. 1762.]
Now that we are tending towards increasing urbanisation and have large populations grouped in centres, the difficulty of the transportation of foodstuffs tends to lead to an increase in chemicalisation. Various chemicals are added to foodstuffs for many reasons, and this problem is daily becoming very much greater.
The Delaney Committee has estimated that about 700 chemicals are now used in foodstuffs, for a very wide range of reasons—for extending their life, colouring them, protecting them in various ways or sweetening them. Chemicals are also applied while foodstuffs are growing, in order to protect them from insect pests and diseases.
I want to stress the fact that some of these chemicals have been tested in laboratories and have been found to do considerable harm to animals there. One well-known pesticide or insecticide—D.D.T.—is used very widely in protecting growing foods from pests and diseases and is also used in homes, hospitals and other places where food is stored, in order to keep away insects. This substance is known to be very toxic and harmful to animals. It is known to occur in the fat residues of human beings as well as animals and to be thereby transmitted to animal and human milk.
In these circumstances we carry a grave responsibility for public welfare if
1804
we allow these substances to be handled very widely by people who are not sufficiently aware of the possibly dangerous consequences. We ought to try at least to understand and take note of the findings of all the various independent authorities and of the investigations which have been going on in this country, in Canada and in the United States of America. Much is known about these dangers, and I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary is well aware that they exist, yet nothing seems to be done.
So many times the criticism is thrown back upon those who speak in this way that they are either too great enthusiasts, eccentrics, cranks, or are advocating this course for a special reason. All I am saying is that we have a very grave responsibility in this matter, because there is a definite possibility that some of these harmful chemicals may be part of the cause of the increase in the incidence of certain diseases, such as poliomyelitis and cancer. I say that only because the origin of these diseases is not well known; we have still not reached the point of deciding where and how they originate.
I cannot understand why we cannot have something similar to the food and drugs administration which exists in the United States of America. If it is impossible to list the drugs which are known to be safe and which may be included in foodstuffs, can we not have a list of the drugs which are known to be dangerous? I do urge that this question be given serious consideration. I am very glad to see that the Minister of Health is here, because it seems a poor argument to say that all drugs are safe until they are proved dangerous. I should have thought it would be much safer to assume that they were all dangerous until they had been proved safe.
Dr. Stross: The hon. Gentleman said that there might be some association between insecticides and other substances which are used for agricultural purposes and certain diseases, including poliomyelitis and cancer. I would point out to him that both these diseases—though it may be best to think in terms of poliomyelitis alone—existed long before these substances were ever dreamt of, let alone manufactured. It would be a mistake to

1805
allow the hon. Member's suggestion to go unchallenged.
Mr. Eden: I merely want to point out that there has been an increase in the incidence of these diseases.
In today's "News Chronicle" there is an article headed
"Polio; Is the weather to blame?"
It is written by someone who signs himself "the Medical Correspondent" and, amongst other things, he says:
"It is known for certain that the virus of poliomyelitis is in many cases swallowed … I would counsel that at this season all fruit should be very carefully washed or peeled even if picked from the hack garden."
He is there referring to the infection of the skin of the fruit by insects while it is on the tree in the orchard. I am only throwing out the suggestion, which is worthy of investigation, that it may also possibly be due to the incidence of poisonous sprays.
To help in such an investigation there should be some kind of overseeing body, such as the food and drugs administration in the United States. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary said that it would take a long time to establish beyond doubt the safety of a substance. I agree with that view, and that it would involve more administration, which would cost money. Yet it would be wise to take time for such an investigation, to make quite sure that the drugs used in our foodstuffs are safe for human consumption before they are actually used. The Ministers concerned with health and food and agriculture have that responsibility, and they should be careful not to let this opportunity pass.
I have shortened my remarks and I have spoken as moderately as possible in the hope that we can get an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that consideration will be given to the points raised by hon. Members opposite and by myself. Whilst we welcome the Clauses in the Bill, we should welcome also specific action to regulate the use of harmful drugs in our foodstuffs.
Mr. Willey: We cannot let this Clause pass without saying that we are disappointed at the attitude of the Government to advertisers. This is becoming a serious matter. It is clear that probably the strongest lobby in the Tory Party
1806
is that of the advertisers. It has been very marked during this Session.
It is no good talking about free private enterprise and thinking that advertisers and other such people should get off scot-free. I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to look at the American and Canadian legislation on this matter. There should be a real sense of public responsibility about advertising, but one of the signs of weakness in the present Administration is the way, time after time, they give way to the advertisers' lobby.
Having said that, I commend this Clause to the Committee. Even with that blemish, it is a genuine advance on existing legislation and, as the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. John Eden) said, it deals with an important subject affecting food hygiene. I hope, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary will take the opportunity to tell us what at present is being done, and what is to be done, by the Food Standards Committee and particularly by the Metallic Sub-Committee. The work being done there is relevant to what we are discussing here and to the matter raised by several hon. Members; namely, the desirable objective of getting lists of approved and not approved substances. I think the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary is probably right. Let us have this work continued and, in the light of its results, we can take effective steps.
I have two questions to put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food which, however, really affect the Minister of Health. Speaking on the first Amendment, I said that for obvious reasons we are not anxious to go outside the purposes of this Bill, which amends the principal Act. I wonder whether any consideration has been given to the question of the definition of drugs? I know that representations have been made by some of the professional bodies, and I ask this question in order to be reassured that at any rate the opportunity of this amending legislation has not been lost, if there should be a case for a further and better definition.
I put my second point in the same way. We were invited to put down an Amendment or a new Clause but I would invite the views of the Government at this stage, although I apologise for not having given notice of the point. Representations have

1807
been made to the effect that in the case of a dangerous drug it would be an advantage for the antidote to be printed on the label. Again, that matter does not arise from the Bill as it stands, but if there should be a suggestion that merits consideration, we should take the opportunity of legislation to deal with it.
I hope, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with these points and assure us that, in the short time between now and Report stage, the Government will see whether it would be possible, if desirable, to introduce Amendments to deal with those two points.
5.45 p.m.
Sir Hugh Linstead: One or two remarks made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) have brought me to my feet. May I ask him to be a little more precise about what he calls the "advertisers' lobby"? The suggestion apparently is that there is a group of advertisers or advertising agents who have been "getting at" hon. Members on this side of the Committee in relation to this Bill. I can only say that I have taken the closest interest in it from its introduction, and this is the first time that I have heard of any move on the part of any advertising lobby to influence the views of anyone. I think the advertising lobby resides only in the imagination of the hon. Gentleman.
Before we leave this Clause, it is desirable to point out that, as it now stands, there is a perfect defence for the public in the event of any misleading or fraudulent advertisement being published. The speeches that we have heard from the other side of the Committee rather suggested that the public is getting no protection. Yet Clause 1 makes the manufacturer—who, after all, is basically the person responsible—the defendant in any prosecution for the use of a fraudulent advertisement. So there is no question of removing fraudulent advertisements beyond the scope of being dealt with properly under the law.
The hon. Gentleman made another interesting remark about the desirability, in the case of dangerous drugs, of printing the antidote on the label. That proposal has been made from time to time and has been referred to the Poisons Board, which is the body charged with the duty
1808
of advising the Minister of Health on the labelling of poisons. I happen to be a member of that Board. On two occasions it has considered the proposition and has decided against it on the purely practical ground that in many cases the treatment for poisoning is not an antidote but a course of treatment. If, therefore, information given on a label were to be of any real value, so much would have to be given as to destroy totally the nature of the label. So the advice given to the Home Secretary twice has been that this is not practically possible.
Mr. Richard Fort: As one who has been closely connected with the chemical industry for many years, I am sure that hon. Members will forgive. me for making a protest against the unsubstantiated remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. John Eden). He has allowed his imagination to run riot in suggesting that diseases like poliomyelitis and the more complex cancer might be connected with the chemicals which are used in the food industry. The chemical industry, like everyone else concerned; is very much concerned to make sure that nothing which is added is injurious to health. All those who are engaged in the industry with whom I have spoken have welcomed the Bill, because it is contributing to the end that all reputable manufacturers of chemicals and food processes want to see, namely, better food.
My hon. Friend spoke as if things were added to food without much thought or investigation, whereas, in fact, all hon. Members who are concerned with the food industry and chemical production know that prolonged investigations are carried out by entirely independent bodies, such as the Medical Research Council and numerous committees set up by the Government. Continuous investigations are also carried out by the universities as well as by the industries concerned. All these results are correlated to make sure that nothing injurious is added to food.
Mr. Dodds: In view of the hon. Member's great knowledge of chemicals, can he deny that there are in use today 276 chemicals which have not been cleared as being safe and are being used in food?
Mr. Fort: It depends on what the hon. Member means by "being safe."
Mr. Dodds: That they will not do any harm.
Mr. Fort: There are certainly a large number which have not had the full, exhaustive tests of the United States food and drugs administration investigation. There is no proof at all, either in this country or in the United States, on the tests carried out, that these things are in any way injurious, although it is perfectly true that they have not been through the five years' or seven years' investigation which is carried out in America. The bodies concerned have done the most intensive investigation over a vast range of chemicals that are in use and I think that the medical profession is well satisfied at the present time, whatever their opinion in the distant past, that what is added to food cannot be regarded as in any way injurious to health.
Mr. John Eden: My hon. Friend made the mildly worded accusation that I probably made my remarks without having given them due consideration and that my charges were rather wild. I assure the Committee and my hon. Friend that I have given very careful consideration to what I said. I have been very interested in this question for a long time and I am personally concerned with a long-term experiment involving the use of chemicals on growing foodstuffs. I assure the Committee that many of the chemicals that are used now are absorbed and stored in the growing plant and thereby can be passed on to human consumption. I would—
The Chairman: Order. I did not call the hon. Member. I thought he wished to make a correction.
Sir L. Plummer: I do not want to widen the split in the party opposite, but I should like to make one comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. John Eden). I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will correct any impression which may go from this Committee that the use of chemicals in growing foods is automatically injurious to health. I live in the country and I am a farmer. I do not know that the incidence of poliomyelitis in the country, where artificial fertilisers and insecticides are used, is much more than in urban areas, or that we have more cancer in the country than in the towns. We must deal with this matter precisely,
1810
otherwise a development in agriculture that is absolutely essential to the welfare of the industry, in the use of insecticides, might be injuriously affected at a time when a declining agricultural population is already making things difficult.
Reference has been made to the systemic treatment of plants. The only way of killing caterpillar moth by this method is to spray cabbages with systemic poison. The cabbage imbibes the poison and is then unfit for human consumption for about six weeks. I do not know whether the period is five or seven weeks, but the responsibility is on the Ministry of Health to keep a careful watch on the systemic treatment of plants so as to ensure that there is no alteration in the effectiveness of the poison in the plant because of the mutations of plant life every generation. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to try to dispel any view that modern developments in agriculture automatically mean that we are becoming a more disease-ridden or disease-prone population.
Dr. Hill: If I may echo what the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) has just said and extend it a little more widely, I should like to say to the Committee that we must retain a sense of balance and not get into the habit of thinking that because a substance is a chemical it is necessarily harmful when added to food. The immense progress that has been made in food technology in recent years indicates the extent to which chemistry can be brought to the aid of food production. I urge hon. Members to beware of what is so temptingly easy, namely, relating a particular disease to a particular cause, without there being scientific ground for the assumption.
Do not let us be lulled into apathy, let us take proper precautions and engage in all possible investigations, but do not let us allow to develop round the word "chemical" a kind of hoodoo. After all, we are all composed of chemicals.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) referred to advertising and spoke of the advantages of or advances made in the Clause. As he knows, it rationalises and modernises the first two Sections of the 1938 Act and adds processing and the use of ingredients to the various factors which may cause food to be injurious to health. The references to offering and

1811
exposing and advertising are new. There is also the new suggestion that in interpreting the words "injurious to health" those words may be taken to include the cumulative effect of substances consumed over long periods.
Other questions put in the course of this debate suggested the publication of a white list. That may come up later in the Committee's deliberations but for the moment I believe that the Clause represents as substantial an advance as we can make. There may be a reference to the cumulative issue when we come to Clause 4, which provides machinery for obtaining the necessary information.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) referred to antidotes, a subject which may be discussed on another occasion.
In general I believe that the Committee will agree that this Clause represents a reasonable advance towards the objective we all have in mind.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2. —(DEFENCES AVAILABLE IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER S. 3 OF PRINCIPAL ACT.)
The Chairman: The first six Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) all go together. They are:
In page 2, line 23, leave out from "Act," to "it," in line 28.
In page 2, In line 29, leave out "the operation in question," and insert "the sale."
In page 2, In line 32, after "nature," insert "or substance or quality."
In page 2, In line 33, leave out "operation," and insert "food or drugs."
In page 2, In line 34, at end, insert:
"and that such person had taken all reasonable steps to bring the notice to the attention of the purchaser."
In page 2, leave out lines 35 to 41.
In page 2, line 41, at end, insert:
(3) No person shall sell or offer for sale for human consumption any food to which any substances which are not derived from vegetable or animal sources have been added or which has been processed by means of any substance which is not itself a food unless
1812
such food has attached thereto a notice of adequate size distinctly and legibly printed and conspicuously visible clearly stating the ingredients contained therein or the nature of the process and the substance used, and a person who contravenes the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of an offence under section two of the principal Act.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. Willey: So far as I am concerned, the Amendments in my name could conveniently be discussed together.
Mr. Dodds: Being a co-operator, even though I do not believe that these Amendments and the Amendment in my name go together, I will co-operate.
Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, to leave out from "Act," to "it." in line 28.
This may look a formidable list of Amendments, but their purpose is quite simple. It is to protest against what appears to us to be some rather clumsy draftsmanship. We are endeavouring to simplify the Clause. I will claim the virtue for these Amendments that the Clause, as amended by them, would be simple to comprehend—
Mr. G. Darling: It would be in English.
Mr. Willey: It would serve the purpose of the Government if the Clause were simple to comprehend. I am surprised that we have not one of the Law Officers with us on this occasion. I will call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the defects of the Clause as it stands. To take an illustration, it refers to Section 3 of the principal Act and
"the sale of food to which any substance has been added, or in the preparation of which any substance has been used as an ingredient. or from which any constituent has been abstracted, or which has been subjected to any other process or treatment, other than food thereby rendered injurious to health."
When we look at Section 3 we find that it does not deal with that, but with the prescription of quality demanded by the purchaser and goes on, in subsection (2), to deal with regulations dealing with the substance of this reference. I made some paving remarks about legislation by reference, but this makes it difficult for people who turn to the Bill to understand what is its effect. I claim no more merit for the Amendments we have put down than that they would at any rate provide a Clause which would be easily understood.

1813
If the Parliamentary Secretary does not like the Clause as it would appear with these Amendments, he should give an assurance that he will ask the Solicitor-General to have a look at it. The Solicitor-General is a new Law Officer and on occasion he has expressed himself about the wording of our legislation. We are not quarrelling with the purpose of the Clause, but it should be in language which might be better understood.
One of the Amendments is of substance, although I do not quarrel with its being considered with the others, as we shall make more progress in that way. That Amendment is to page 2, line 34, at the end, to insert:
"and that such person had taken all reasonable steps to bring the notice to the attention of the purchaser."
We know from other legislation that that is a very necessary safeguard. I can see no reason why the Parliamentary Secretary should not accept this Amendment. As it stands the Clause provides a defence if it is not done fraudulently and if there is
"a notice of adequate size, distinctly and legibly printed and conspicuously visible."
But it is possible to conceive circumstances in which even that would not be an adequate safeguard to the consumer.
Where does the panty opposite stand on this matter? I hope that someone will speak for the consumer, for the first time this afternoon, in discussing this Amendment. Why should we not have this additional precaution to safeguard the consumer? Although we make these provisions there is no reason why we should not further provide that such a person should have the onus placed on him to take all reasonable steps to bring the notice to the attention of the purchaser. I should have thought everyone in the Committee would accept this as a most reasonable Amendment and that I need not say anything more about it.
Mr. Dodds: My hon. Friend mentioned that these Amendments were similar. In speaking of the Amendment in my name, to page 2, line 41, I hope that I may put my case in such a way as to show that it is vitally important. I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary is anxious to produce a Bill which will be a big step forward even on the 1938 Act.
I cannot see why this Amendment should not be accepted. While many
1814
people would like to ban all chemicals which have not been proved to be safe, this Amendment does not ask for that to be done. It says that where they are from vegetable or animal substances there is no need to tell the purchaser, but, if they happen to come from minerals, for instance, that should be declared in such a fashion that the purchaser will be aware of what is in the article he or she is buying.
Mr. Fort: Including salt?
Mr. Dodds: If it is mineral that should be mentioned. I would not feel so definite about this Amendment as a layman but the Food Education Society, with which some of the finest medical people in the nutritional world are concerned, believes that because there are chemicals now being used which are of mineral origin and are still under a form of suspicion, it is essential that the public should be aware of any substance which derives from that source and happens to be in any goods they purchase.
Dr. Stross: Does my hon. Friend mean by "mineral" in the context he is using, artificial substances not naturally found in plants or animals?
Mr. Dodds: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who has technical knowledge of these subjects, but I would have thought that the way in which I had put it as a non-medical man clearly indicated the purport of the Amendment. If, not having medical knowledge, I have not put it as clearly as it should be put, it has now been made quite clear.
In asking that this Amendment should be given very serious consideration, I call in aid doctors other than my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). Doctors are declaring that there is a universal weariness today and much of it is because of the development of the use of chemicals since the Second World War. Some doctors are claiming that the main trouble is that we are being pickled by chemicals. On Thursday night, in the Adjournment debate, I hope to show that this weariness has a bearing on physical fitness.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to accept this Amendment. He did not seem to be too clear on this matter and

1815
showed lack of knowledge in the Second Reading debate. He said:
"For example, in recent years dulcin, a sweetening substance, was added during the period of shortage of sugar. Experiment showed that dulcin caused tumor formation in rats. That was regarded as a strong enough suspicion to ban its use. There are other examples."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23 rd July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 1766.]
The hon. Gentleman will remember that he gave way at that point and I asked whether he agreed, in view of the fact, for instance, that agene had been used on animals and proved harmful, that we ought to be more careful about the effect on people.
I use that example to indicate that there is nothing but doubt about many of the mineral chemicals used in food manufacture and processing. I could, of course, give examples relating to analine dyes, but I wish to follow the example of the Parliamentary Secretary and not make a point which might unnecessarily create alarm in the country about something which is not yet proved. On the other hand, I ask that we shall not be apathetic about these matters. All we are asking in this Amendment is that people who buy these goods should know in advance whether they contain any substance which is derived from other than animal or vegetable sources.
During the Second Reading debate I made the point, which was received with approval, that what is needed is not so much the creation of punishable offences, but greater facilities for educating the public. Therefore I ask that we should on that score, if for no other reason, accept the need for making this information available to the consumer. Curiosity will be created because of many of the strange names being used, and it would encourage the public to find out more about the food they buy.
I think that this would receive the support of reputable manufacturers. Many of them are concerned that others are introducing substances into foods because they are cheaper, and as a result the reputable manufacturers find themselves handicapped. I hope that this will be regarded as a vital Amendment, if we are sincere in our desire to provide pure food for the people.
Mr. Hastings: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he classifies dulcin as an animal, vegetable or mineral substance?
Mr. Dodds: I believe that it is neither animal nor vegetable, and, therefore, would have had to be declared to the public. But since it has now been banned, there is no point in asking for that.
Dr. Stross: Listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds), who put his case very well indeed, I wondered whether what he was asking for is covered in the first seven or eight lines of the Clause. My hon. Friend is asking for labelling if there has been processing or additional subtraction from the particular article or foodstuff. If that be so I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that this Amendment should be accepted or that the assurance for which my hon. Friend asks should be firmly given.
Were he present, the Minister of Health would agree that his chief medical officer has referred in his reports to the sort of thing about which my hon. Friend has spoken. There are produced substances or by-products of the high explosive industry, and in some cases the petrol distillation industry and from other sources, which provide artificial substances which are not in their molecular form known in any natural animal or vegetable substance. We have to be careful until they have been fully and adequately tested in case they may prove harmful to human beings over a prolonged period. That is why we have this Bill. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that that is the whole burden of what my hon. Friend was saying, and I hope he will accede to our request.
6.15 p.m.
Dr. Hill: I will deal with the Amendments taken collectively by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey); his claim to have rewritten the Clause with greater clarity and his request for the views of the Solicitor-General. I will, of course, seek the views of the Solicitor-General.
While I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on achieving greater clarity, I am bound to say that he has seriously damaged the Bill by what he has done. The Committee will notice that in providing

1817
a defence under Section 3 of the principal Act the hon. Gentleman has so done it as to make it possible for a person convicted of the addition, etc., which was injurious to health to have a defence that it was not fraudulent, and that he put it on the label. I know that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to do so, but that illustrates the point that greater clarity sometimes results in an important and undesirable change of meaning.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the most important point in these Amendments is contained in that Amendment which would add,
"and that such person had taken all reasonable steps to bring the notice to the attention of the purchaser."
I have given a great deal of thought to that Amendment and I have asked myself what, in fact, it would mean in terms of a sale across the counter. The product is labelled according to law. Is it the duty of the assistant to do anything? He must take all reasonable steps to bring the notice to the attention of the purchaser. Has he to say anything to the purchaser in selling the product?
We are all entitled to our own interpretation of the words. but the person making a sale in this case is the person charged, that he had not
"taken all reasonable steps to bring the notice to the attention of the purchaser"—
Mr. M. Turner-Samuels rose—
Dr. Hill: If the hon. and learned Gentleman would allow me for one moment—I am quite sympathetic to this, but I do not want a form of words which is so vague as to seem to create an intolerable burden or something which cannot easily be understood. I will look at the point again, but our first reaction is that it may prove to be exceedingly difficult to operate.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that it is a serious matter which requires careful thought. There may be in a shop, on the counter or on the shelves, hundreds or thousands of articles, and the suggestion that an assistant or the proprietor of the shop, when he sells some article from those many articles to one customer in a shop which may be full of customers, is specially to take further unspecified steps to bring the notice to the attention of the
1818
customer, is not a practical suggestion and would be merely adding another offence to the many already in existence.
The Minister would agree that the notification ought to be of such a conspicuous character that it is brought home to the person who is purchasing, but to put the onus beyond that would seem a very difficult thing to do.
Dr. Hill: It is provided that the notice shall be conspicuous. If the Amendment is withdrawn we will look at the point to see whether we can meet it. At the same time, we do not in any way commit ourselves, because of the immense difficulties which may arise. Indeed, I can see one hon. Gentleman opposite whose mind is immediately exercised in contemplating the possibilities.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the general objective of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds), but I ask him not to use such comprehensive expressions as:
"… not derived from vegetable or animal sources …."
That would seem to condemn substances which are not derived from vegetable or animal sources. It would seem by implication to approve substances which do come within those categories. Our difficulty is that some of the substances upon which we are keeping a careful watch are substances within those categories.
When we reach Clause 5, which deals with labelling requirements, I will seek to give such assurance as I can, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will avoid this omnibus classification of substances, with animal and vegetable on the one hand and those not in that category, or mineral, on the other, and with requirements in respect of one group and not in respect of the other. That generalised omnibus approach to the problem would lead to the wrong result. In considering labelling requirements, I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press for a classification which does not fit in with the facts about the harmful character of substances.
Mr. Dodds: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman pointed out that I might have given a wrong impression. I do not seek to say that all substances derived from mineral or animal sources are fit for human food. There is need to give

1819
special attention to the question of substances from mineral sources. That was the main point. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to consider the matter.
Dr. Hill: Quite apart from the considerations that I have mentioned, I hope that we shall not require the naming of substances on labels in a long and complete list, willy-nilly—salt, baking powder, and so on. We want labels not to be a long miscellany of chemical and other substances that are included because those ingredients are there. We want labels to be something that the customer can understand, something drawing attention to what the customer rightly and properly should know.
Again, I urge that we should not decide on the basis of this broad classification the list of substances to be included in the labels for fear of lumbering them up with a mass of unimportant information.
Mr. Mitchison: Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he recognised that there was substance in the argument which was put forward and that his objection was to the language, which he found too sweeping. Is he prepared to give an undertaking that he will introduce an Amendment to meet the point the substance which I understood him to recognise?
Dr. Hill: No. I said that when we came to Clause 5 we would be considering the labelling of food and drugs and that issues about labelling could be raised. In general, it would be wrong to have this omnibus classification of substances. Labelling requirements should be considered on their merits in relation to the public interest and not in conformity with the headings mineral, animal and vegetable.
Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for what he has said. I appreciate the arguments he has made against me and I say in my own
defence that if we had succeeded with these Amendments we should have retired to the Library tomorrow morning to draft a new Clause to meet the point. We are satisfied with the assurance which has been given. In the circumstances, I do not intend to move the Amendments in lines 29, 32 and 33. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, at the end, to insert:
"and that such person had taken all reasonable steps to bring the notice to the attention of the purchaser."
We regard this as an Amendment of substance. It is all very well to provide the mechanical safeguard of the notice, but we should also place the onus on the person selling a commodity to call attention to the notice. The Parliamentary Secretary has made it clear that he cannot commit the Government. Because of that I must advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to divide the Committee so that we can express our point of view about what we regard as an essential requirement to safeguard the consumer.
Mr. F. Harris: What is the good of trying to make laws which cannot be physically carried out?
Mr. Willey: That kind of remark is a serious and unwarranted reflection upon our courts of law.
Mr. Harris: The people cannot carry out the requirements.
Mr. Willey: There are no courts better fitted to interpret the meaning of the word "reasonable" than are our courts of justice. This is the sort of point which can be wisely left to the good sense of our courts.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 214 Noes, 234.

Division No. 217.]

AYES

[6.28 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Beattie, J.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Albu, A. H.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Brockway, A. F.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Bence, C. R.

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Beswick, F.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Blackburn, F.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Awbery, S. S.

Blenkinsop, A.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Boardman, H.

Burke, W. A.

Balfour, A.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G

Burton, Miss F. E.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

Bowden, H. W.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Bartley, P.

Bowles, F. G.

Callaghan, L. J.

Carmichael, J.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Richards, R.

Champion, A. J

Jeger, Mrs. Lena

Robens, Rt. Hon. A

Chapman, W. D

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Chetwynd, G. R

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Clunie, J.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Rogers, George (Kensington. N.)

Collick, P. H

Keenan, W.

Ross, William

Collins, V. J

Kenyon, C.

Shackleton, E. A. A

Cove, W. G.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

Short, E. W

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Kinley, J.

Shurmar, P. L. E.

Grossman, R. H. S

Lawson, G. M.

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Daines, P.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

Skeffington, A. M.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Logan, D. G

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

MacColl, J. E

Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

McGhee, H. G

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

McInnes, J.

Sorensen, R. W

Deer, G.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Sparks, J. A

Delargy, H. J.

McLeavy, F.

Steele, T.

Dodds, N. N.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

Manuel, A. C

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H A

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Mason, Roy

Stross, Dr. Barnett

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Mayhem, C. P.

Summerskill, Rt Hon. E

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Mellish, R. J.

Swingler, S. T

Fienburgh, W

Messer, Sir F.

Sylvester, G. O

Finch, H. J.

Mitchison, G. R

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

Monslow, W.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Follick, M.

Moody, A. S.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W)

Foot, M. M.

Morgan, Dr H. B W

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

Forman, J. C.

Morley, R.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Timmons, J.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Morrison, Rt. Hon H (Lewisham, S)

Tomney, F.

Gibson, C. W.

Mort, D. L.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon P C

Moyle, A.

Usborne, H. C

Greenwood Anthony

Mulley, F. W

Viant, S. P.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R

Murray, J. D

Warbey, W. N

Grey, C. F.

Nally, W.

Watkins, T. E

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, S.)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon P J

Weitzman, D.

Hale, Leslie

Oldfield, W. H

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Oliver, G. H

West, D. G.

Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

Oswald, T.

Wheeldon, W. E

Hamilton, W. W.

Padley, W. E

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Hardy, E. A.

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon W

Hargreaves, A

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Wilkins, W. A

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

Pannell, Charles

Willey, F. T.

Hasting, S.

Pargiter, G. A

Williams, David (Neath)

Hayman, F. H.

Parker, J

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

Paton, J.

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

Herbison, Miss M.

Pearson, A

Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

Hewitson, Capt. M

Peart, T. F.

Willis, E. G.

Hobson, C. R

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Wilson, Rt. Hon Harold (Hayton)

Holman, P.

Popplewell, E.

Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

Hoy, J. H.

Porter, G.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon A

Hubbard, T. F.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Wyatt, W. L

Hudson, James (Eating, N.)

Proctor, W. T

Yates, V. F.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Pryde, D. J.

Younger, Rt. Hon. K

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Rankin, John

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Reeves, J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

Mr. James Johnson and

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Reid, William (Camlachie)

Mr. Holmes.

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P T

Rhodes, H

NOES

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

Bishop, F. P.

Cole, Norman

Alport, C. J. M.

Boothby, Sir R. J G

Colegate, W. A.

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Bossom, Sir A. C.

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Bowen, E. R

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon J A

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr J M

Brooman-White, R. C.

Crouch, R. F.

Baldwin, A. E

Browne, Jack (Govan)

Crowdar, Sir John (Finekley)

Banks, Col. C

Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P G T

Deedes, W. F.

Barber, Anthony

Bullard, D. G.

Dodds-Parker, A. D

Barlow, Sir John

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Donaldson, Cmdr C E. McA

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Burden, F. F. A.

Doughty, C. J. A.

Beach, Maj. Hicks

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T (Richmond)

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Campbell, Sir David

Duncan, Capt J. A. L.

Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

Cary, Sir Robert

Duthie, W. S.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Birch, Nigel

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Erroll, F. J.

1822

1823

Fell, A.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Robertson, Sir David

Finlay, Graeme

Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Fisher, Nigel

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Robson-Brown, W.

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Roper, Sir Harold

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Longden, Gilbert

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Ford, Mrs. Patricia

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Russell, R. S.

Fort, R.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

McAdden, S. J.

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Scott, R. Donald

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Garner-Evans, E. H.

McKibbin, A. J.

Shepherd, William

Glover, D.

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Gower, H. R.

Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Graham, Sir Fergus

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Soames, Capt. C.

Gridley, Sir Arnold

Macmillan, Rt. Hon, Harold (Bromley)

Spearman, A. C. M.

Grimond, J.

Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

Speir, R. M.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Marples, A. E.

Stevens, Geoffrey

Harden, J. R. E.

Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

Hare, Hon. J. H.

Maude, Angus

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Maudling, R.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

Storey, S.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

Mellor, Sir John

Studholme, H. G.

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Molson, A. H. E.

Summers, G. S.

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Moore, Sir Thomas

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Heath, Edward

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Higgs, J. M. C.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

Neave, Airey

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Nicholls, Harmar

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

Tilney, John

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Turner, H. F. L.

Hope, Lord John

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Turton, R. H.

Horsburgh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Nugent, G. R. H.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony

Vane, W. M. F.

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Vesper, D. F.

Hughes-Hallet, Vice-Admiral J.

Page, R. G.

Wade, D. W.

Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

Partridge, E.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Hurd, A. R.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

Perkins, Sir Robert

Wall, Major Patrick

Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

Peyton, J. W. W.

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Iremonger, T. L.

Pitman, I. J.

Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Wellwood, W.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Powell, J. Enoch

Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Kaberry, D.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Keeling, Sir Edward

Profumo, J. D.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Raikes, Sir Victor

Wills, G.

Kerr, H. W.

Ramsden, J. E.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Lambert, Hon. G.

Rayner, Brig. R.

Wood, Hon. R.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Redmayne, M.

Leather, E. H. C.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Remnant, Hon. P.

Mr. Richard Thompson and

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Renton, D. L. M.

Sir Cedric Drewe.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Ridsdale, J. E.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, at the end, to insert:
(3) Proceedings shall not be taken under section three of the principal Act in respect of such a breach of condition as is mentioned in sections twenty-five and twenty-six of the Food and Drugs (Milk, Dairies and Artificial Cream) Act, 1950.
I am afraid that this is a lawyer's Amendment in the worst sense of the word and I move it as a lawyer and not as a secret dairyman. It concerns dairymen. In 1950, the Food and Drugs (Milk, Dairies and Artificial Cream) Act provided certain penalties for dairymen
1824
who infringed their licences in the particular matter of selling designated milk wrongly—that is to say, selling milk which was not up to the designated standard. Previously, the only sanction had been the withdrawal of the licence.
When the 1950 Act was before the House, it was quite clearly indicated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill)—and it was also indicated in another place—that these were new penalties and were the appropriate penalties for this offence.
The penalties involved, first of all, a warning—a statutory matter that occurs

1825
in the 1950 Act—and, secondly, fines increasing according to the repetition of the offence. Considerable stress was placed on this at the time, and my right hon. Friend reassured the House that there was no undue severity in the matter. On 21st February, 1949, she said that the Section which is now before the Committee
"… provides that a warning notice should be given for the first breach of the conditions and that only when the vendor has been guilty of a second offence within 12 months of the warning may he be the subject of proceedings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 1611.]
That was referred to by a number of other hon. Members, and I am sure that the Committee will take it from me that it was not only on that occasion, but on others. too.
In 1951, there was a prosecution. apparently in Lancashire, under Section (3) of the 1938 Act—that is, the principal Act that we are considering today—for something which would have been an offence to be dealt with under the Section of the 1950 Act which I have just mentioned, and the particular offence was that of selling a bottle of milk not of the quality demanded, because such milk failed to satisfy the tests for pasteurised milk.
It was, in fact, exactly what had been contemplated when the 1950 Act was introduced and for which these penalties had been prescribed. There was a conviction under Section (3) of the 1938 Act, and, of course, I am not saying that it was wrong, but it was certainly not what had been intended when the House was considering the matter in 1950.
The matter does not end there, because if we turn to the Sections of the 1950 Act to which I have been referring, we find that under Section 26, which is the second of them, a breach of the conditions, which was an offence under the 1938 Act,
"shall not render the holder of the licence guilty of an offence under the last foregoing section."—
that is to say, if he is liable to any punishment by or under any enactment other than that Section.
The result is that if there is a breach of the licence by the sale of pasteurised milk which is not up to standard, in spite of what was said in the 1950 Act and what was undoubtedly the intention of
1826
the House at the time, a dairyman cannot be prosecuted under that Act. He has to be prosecuted under the 1938 Act, because the offence can be punished under that Act, as appeared in the case of this prosecution in 1951. The result, therefore, is that the original penalty of having a licence withdrawn having been very properly stiffened in 1950, subject to certain protection which was fully intended and discussed at the time, that protection now proves quite nugatory, and, in fact, the penalty intended in 1950 is no longer appropriate.
This Amendment will have the effect that a dairyman could no longer be punished under Section 3 of the principal Act for this type of offence punishable under two Sections of the 1950 Act, and, therefore, the Amendment would restore what was undoubtedly the intention of the House at the time the 1950 Act was passed. If I may say so with very great respect to my right hon. Friend, it would also restore in this matter her political honour and the political honour of this House as well. A promise was made here in 1950, and safeguards were given, but a subsequent decision, which nobody foresaw, made these safeguards entirely nugatory and imposed a penalty which it was not intended should be imposed in. this particular case at the time. There it is. I hope the Amendment will commend itself to the Committee as only fair. I see hon. Gentlemen opposite looking anxiously at various books of reference. I hope I shall get their support and that of the Committee as a whole.
6.45 p.m.
Dr. Hill: I am sure that the Committee is grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) for his clear exposition of what he calls a lawyer's point, but the hon. and learned Gentleman may have omitted one aspect of the matter. As he put it, the law requires that, in connection with the offences listed in the Fourth Schedule of the 1950 Act, if there can be a prosecution under any other enactment, it must take place.
The particular point at issue is this. The possible offences listed in the Fourth Schedule of the 1950 Act include offences in regard to the keeping of records and the making of proper tests in connection with milk. In the case of offences of

1827
fraud, where the dairyman has mixed pasteurised and non-pasteurised milk together and called it pasteurised milk, the law now requires that that man shall be prosecuted for fraud under Section 3 of the 1938 Act, which deals with fraud. I suggest that it is, on the whole, a desirable thing that all persons who are accused of fraud should be accused under the same Section, and that dairymen in non-specified areas as well as in specified areas should be treated alike for the purpose of this Section, because the 1950 Act refers to dairymen in unspecified areas.
If we prevent these prosecutions for fraud or fail to require them, we shall be in this position. Under the 1950 Act, a man cannot be prosecuted for the first offence. He must have done it twice within 12 months in order to be prosecuted under that Section, so that I suggest that, bearing in mind that there is no such trial run for fraud under Section 3 of the 1938 Act, the Committee should think twice before providing that a fraudulent offender cannot be prosecuted in respect of the first offence.
I admit straight away that there is an argument on the other side, and it is this. If the prosecution takes place under the fraud provision—Section 3 of the 1938 Act—there cannot be in respect of that prosecution termination of the licence. If, on the other hand, there are two offences and a successful prosecution is made under the 1950 Act, there can be termination of the licence. But I suspect that the single offence of fraud that comes within the 1938 Act is unlikely to be the only offence, and, if there is any other offence under any other section or under the Fourth Schedule of the 1950 Act, the offender, provided that he has done it twice within 12 months, is liable to have his licence removed.
I have had the most unusual experience of believing the right hon. Lady to be right in this matter. To do what the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests would mean that in a specified area a dairyman could not be, or need not necessarily be, prosecuted for fraud, whereas a dairyman in an unspecified area doing the same thing could be prosecuted for fraud. Bearing in mind that, under Section 3 of the 1938 Act, there is no trial run for a fraudulent offence, I suggest that there should not be any trial
1828
run in the Bill for such a fraudulent offence. I trust that the Committee will leave the position as it is, and will not accept the Amendment.
Mr. Mitchison: It is true that Section 3 of the principal Act covers fraud in the ordinary sense of the word, but it also covers the case where pasteurised milk is not up to the required standard. The difficulty is that we cannot deal with the matter under the 1938 Act in the way which the House of Commons intended. If the Minister wants to limit the protection to certain cases and to exclude the fraudulent ones, I shall be only too happy to accept his assurance that he will look into the matter on those lines. The trouble at present is that the man who sells the wrong kind of milk because it is not up to the standard cannot be dealt with as the Act intended he should he dealt with. There is no element of fraud in the Lancaster prosecution, so far as I know.
Dr. Hill: Our contention is that with Section 3 remaining as it is, anybody who offends against the Section, whether dairyman or otherwise, in a specified area or otherwise, should be dealt with under that Section. That is the situation which now obtains. I appreciate the point of the hon. and learned Gentleman that there may be cases which could be brought within the ambit of the Section which are not fraudulent in the sense that we are discussing. Let us assume that in such marginal cases the local authority will act sensibly. Let us refrain from making a change which would have grave consequences in the sense of excluding a particular category of dairyman, not even the whole of the dairymen, from the operation of a general Clause dealing with fraudulent offences.
Mr. Michael Higgs: I and some of my hon. Friends have been concerned in the same way as is the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), and we considered the possibility of an Amendment to the same effect as the one we are now discussing. After studying the matter, we came to the view that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is right, though it may be that stronger assurances than he has so far been able to give us might be desirable.

1829
As I understand the 1950 Act, it did not purport to deal with transactions of sale. It did not fix the point of an offence at the sale of milk to a purchaser. There was nothing in Section 25 of the 1950 Act, or of the Fourth Schedule thereto, which made it an offence at the moment when milk was sold. That Act was aimed at what I may broadly describe as the drill to be followed in the dairy. It laid down the procedure to be followed in the dairy and provided the conditions in the licence to deal with the matter. It dealt also with the efficiency of machines, the keeping of records and the keeping of two different kinds of milk separately in the dairy.
The 1938 Act deals with the offence which takes place when a sale is made to the detriment of the purchaser. It is possible that where there has been a breakdown in the drill in the dairy or in the machinery of the dairy, a sale may follow which is to the detriment of the purchaser. To that extent it is possible to say that if, owing to the failure of procedure in the dairy, different kinds of milk such as pasteurised and unpasteurised get mixed, if there is a subsequent sale to a purchaser and the mistake is not found out until there is a sale to a purchaser, and if a sample is taken, that is a transgression which might be punished under either Act, either as bad drill in the dairy under the 1950 Act, or as a sale to the detriment of the purchaser under the 1938 Act.
It is in that class of case that the difficulty arises. I do not think that anyone in the Committee would wish to see a dairyman who deliberately mixed two pints of milk, tried under the 1950 Act. It would be impossible to prosecute where faulty dairy procedure took place and was found out before a sale. No one would suggest that that offence could be prosecuted under the 1938 Act. It must be prosecuted under the 1950 Act.
The difficulty arises where a sale takes place and there is a possible prosecution under the 1938 Act, but because the defect was the result of bad dairy drill it might also be prosecuted under the 1950 Act. Surely the commonsense thing is to say that where it is an innocent matter such as a mere fault in the machines which nobody could have prevented, or where it is carelessness or oversight, the
1830
1950 Act should apply. One was intended to have one free bite every year and the safeguards in the 1950 Act apply, as well as the severer consequence of repeated offences in the form of removal of licence.
In a case of that sort, the 1950 Act should be used and we would all agree that that would be reasonable. Where there has been deliberate fraud, and a dairyman has deliberately mixed two kinds of milk, pasteurised and unpasteurised, and sold them as pasteurised, anyone would agree that it should be dealt with under the 1938 Act, as was the Lancaster case.
My hon. Friend seemed to be giving some kind of assurance which probably cannot be defined in the statute but which one can see in practice and which would be followed as far as possible. We are rather in the hands of the food and drug authorities. Perhaps my hon. Friend could draw attention to the apprehensions which the dairymen have had about the consequences of the Lancaster case and try to secure that the dividing line which I have tried to explain to the Committee should be followed in practice by food and drug authorities. Then we might all feel satisfied that the right conclusion had been reached in this matter.
Mr. Mitchison: I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to look at this point of the cases where there should be prosecution under the 1950 Act and not under the 1938 Act. It is a very subtle line, so subtle that I noticed that when my right hon. Friend was making the speech to which I referred a few minutes ago she used the words, referring to the then state of the law, "If a vendor infringes the condition." She treated the matter at the time, and no doubt the House was treating it too, as one where the actual process of sale and the conduct of operations in the dairy were so closely associated that there was no material difference.
I do not want to protect the fraudulent milk dealer. What I am after is a different type of case altogether, where there has been a failure in the standard and where a man may be liable under Section 3. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would be good enough to tell me that he will look into the matter with regard to that type of case only, and I should then be more than satisfied and

1831
would at once ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would meet me to that extent. I am not asking for an undertaking.
Dr. Hill: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would appreciate an undertaking to examine this matter in relation to the narrow, restricted circumstances which have been so well described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs). I will gladly look at the point. I am sure that neither the hon. and learned Gentleman nor my hon. Friend are suggesting that the Minister should tell local authorities what to do. Within those limitations I will look at the point, provided that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not seek the main change which his Amendment sets out.
Mr. Mitchison: I accept that entirely, and I would not go beyond that point. Having regard to what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.0. p.m.
Mr. I. J. Pitman: I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, at the end, to insert:
(3) In proceedings under the said section three it shall be a defence to prove that the food or drug in question was lawfully sold under a trade mark in response to a demand made by the purchaser with reference to the trade mark and was not inferior in nature, substance or quality to the food or drug normally sold under the trade mark:
Provided that—

(a) the trade mark as applied is used to indicate a connection in the course of trade between the food or drug and the person who is the proprietor of the trade mark or between the food or drug and a person who is registered under section twenty-eight of the Trade Marks Act, 1938, as a registered user of the trade mark; and

(b) the person who is the proprietor of the trade mark is the same person as, or a successor in title of, the proprietor on the day this Act is passed.

The origin of this Amendment lies in the fact that in Clause 2 (3) we are repealing paragraph (5) of Section 4 of the 1938 Act. That Section states that it shall be a defence to prove
"that the article supplied was a proprietary medicine and was supplied in response to a demand for that medicine."
Under the Bill at present, new prosecutions by local authorities in the case of
1832
medicines will be possible under Section 3 of the 1938 Act which were not possible before.
The first question I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary is whether the protection given to the public and to the retailer under the 1938 Act was undesirable, and, if there were any such undesirable cases, whether such undesirable cases were cases which would not now be covered by other parts of this Bill? When this Bill was introduced in another place, the repeal of Section 4 (5) was not provided for in it, and presumably, therefore, it was not thought desirable at that stage that there should be this fresh number of prosecutions of the retailer.
The Amendment, however, was moved in another place under the complete misconception that the trade accepted the repeal of that Section. In point of fact, that is the very opposite, and, therefore, it would be arguable that it would be justifiable to seek to amend the Bill by the deletion of the Amendment which was inserted in the other place. I speak for the Joint Committee of the Proprietory Association of Great Britain, the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry, the National Pharmaceutical Union, the Company Chemists Association and the National Federation of Grocers and the Provision Dealers' Association.
These bodies do not press to go as far as all that, and this Amendment does not go as far as the 1938 Act. It adopts a middle course, or what one might call a golden mean between the 1938 Act and this Bill, because, if this Amendment is accepted, it will be a defence for the retailer if he is prosecuted that the public asked for what the public got, provided that the product
"was not inferior in nature, substance or quality to the food or drug normally sold under the trade mark."
I wish to emphasise the point that the Amendment will not protect inferior goods, because that is ruled out under the Amendment. Equally, it will not protect the misleading goods because they are sold under a misleading trade name. For instance, if there were a Pitman's brand of aspirin which did not contain any aspirin at all, it would not be a defence under this Amendment, because, in point of fact, the prosecution would take place under Clause 5 owing to the

1833
fact that the whole thing would be misleading in itself.
That leaves only what are called "ethical" foods and medicines, and medicines within that ethical field which are by necessity superior by nature, substance and quality. May I give the Committee an example, first, from the past, and, secondly, an imaginary example from the future? In the past, we have had the substance known as chlorodyne, and in the future it might well be possible for a manufacturing chemist, after a great deal of research and development, to discover and market a most beneficial aureomycin whooping cough mixture. I may postulate that both products are ethical because it is only if a commodity is so beneficial that the authorities approve it and themselves copy it using the same name that the issue under this Amendment can arise at all.
It happens, and has happened, in the case of chlorodyne that the substance is considered so beneficial that it is admitted to the British Pharmacopoeia or to the British Pharmaceutical Codex with the same name. When it is so introduced, two differences occur. The first is a small difference of nomenclature. There are now two chlorodynes, one a Dr. Collis Browne's chlorodyne and another bearing the same name which is the official one in the British Pharmacopoeia. There is also a slight difference in substance. A variation is made in the formula so that there are now two versions of substance.
The Minister will no doubt turn round and say that there is no doubt that those two substances, notwithstanding their variations, are, in point of fact, the same substance. If he says that, then I think that is all the more reason for accepting this Amendment, because it will permit such minor, but only such minor, variations in the substance without danger of prosecution to the original.
If there were a substantial variation made subsequently in the substance of the original product, then there would not be protection because the words
"normally sold under the trade mark."
would prevent such a major change. Similarly, I think that the trade mark people would not allow the continuation of the trade mark for the sale of a substance which had been significantly altered.
1834
However, there will be unless the Amendment is accepted a debatable point whether two versions of a substance are the same substance. Since they are different substances, then it is possible for the local authority which is going to prosecute to suppose that the official one is the superior substance, and that the proprietary article, the manufacturers of which have done all the work in that field, is by inference an inferior article, which we know not to be the case.
All prosecutions in this field are vexatious. They take up time and cost money, and they take up the time of the courts, too. Do not let us forget that there are about 2,000 local authorities who will be in a position to instigate prosecutions under this Bill. It is very debatable whether we do not allow the Executive to exercise its discretion too much in refraining from prosecution. In other words, I think that there is a lot to be said for the fact that we give the Executive too many powers and accept on trust that it will exercise its ability to prosecute with discretion. If that is debatable in the case of Whitehall, how much more debatable is it when we have proliferated up and down the country literally thousands of local authorities upon whose discretion the whole question of the administration of this Bill will depend?
It is bad in itself, in this matter, to have the law indefinite, and if we can make it definite let us do so. It is also very discouraging to research and to the enormous capital required for the developing of any new drug of this character to have the fear that when all that money has been spent it may be found impracticable, after making the manufacture popular, to sell it in competition with the official imitation.
Finally, it is unfair to the public. After all, when the public come in and demand Dr. Collis Browne's chlorodyne, they are demanding something in which they believe because they have proved their faith in it and like to be allowed to get it without the retailer being prosecuted for supplying that for which they ask. It would be sound to discourage prosecutions by these 2,000 authorities and, if they do prosecute, it would save the time of the court to have the matter clearly covered by the Bill.
Sir Ian Fraser: I declare an interest in this

1835
matter, being a director of certain companies which manufacture and distribute branded articles or articles which are sold subject to registered trade marks. I am interested, not only for shareholders who deserve consideration, but also for very large numbers of people employed in making and distributing these products and who are very interested in the well-being of the business which many of them have spent most of their lifetime to build up.
It is a pity that the Government which passed, in this very Parliament, the Merchandise Marks Act should include in this Bill further Clauses which a great many people in the trades concerned consider vexatious, embarrassing and harassing. However, if further regulation of these profitable, popular, and I think useful, businesses must be made, then I beg of my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench to listen sympathetically and consider whether they cannot meet us by accepting this Amendment or, at any rate, by finding some words which would help to assuage the sore feelings of many of the people for whom I speak.
We do not want to multiply inquiries, prosecutions and defences. Let us remember that all these ancillary products of legislation have to be paid for out of the money made by industry. Were it not for these successful industries there would not be the taxes to pay for them at all. Branded articles, in themselves, are valuable not only to the person owning the brands and trade marks but to the public, to whom they give certainty of quality and repetition of quality in which the public have faith.
7.15 p.m.
Those are things which should be encouraged, and not discouraged by vexatious prosecutions. An established trade mark is of value to the person who owns it and to the people who have faith in it. It ought to be a piece of property which, if reasonably used, is respected by the law and not subject to whimsical, arbitrary—and sometimes malicious—attack by Tom, Dick and Harry, whether he be in Whitehall or town hall.
It is for those general reasons that I ask the Government to consider seriously the case which is now being put to them. The explanations given by my hon.
1836
Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) are within the recollection of the Committee and it would be tedious to repeat them. I will only say that in our judgment—and we have been, we think, well advised by experienced people and by learned counsel—the Bill as it stands does allow a great many people to prosecute responsible and worthy companies which are rendering a public service, for faults which, as my hon. Friend has said, are not really faults at all but a necessary part of the process of making and popularising good products.
If one is responsible for making and popularising a product, and making it so well that authority wishes to put the formula in an official code, it seems grossly unfair that that fact should lay one open to a prosecution which might stop one selling the very thing which has been produced to benefit the people as well as oneself. I do not pretend that the companies which I represent have been abused in this matter but they, as well as every other section, deserve fair treatment and reasonable conditions in which to work in order to make money and to sustain the executive of the country.
The whole of the trade concerned in making these goods which are the subject of trade marks and brands, manufacturers and wholesalers in both the drug and food businesses and all the grocers in Britain—and there are 100,000 of them—are all represented in the plea which we are making to the Government. I earnestly hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will listen.
Dr. Hill: I confess that I am a little puzzled by the statements of the misapprehensions made by my hon. Friends who have spoken to this Amendment. This clearly derives from the omission of the defence in Section 4 (5) of the 1938 Act. There have been some discussions with the pharmaceutical trade on the subject. That trade has never maintained that, where an article the subject of trade mark has deteriorated, say in store, it should not be possible to prosecute under the appropriate Section. It has never contended that and my hon. Friend does not raise the matter here.
If that is not raised, then what he seeks to ensure is that, where the substance is bought in response to a demand made by the purchaser in reference to the trade mark, that should be a defence. But

1837
there is no offence. If, in fact, the sale is made in response to a demand for so-and-so's pills or so-and-so's chlorodyne—and I wish to avoid mentioning names—there is no offence. I can appreciate the point that, where a substance is in the British Pharmacopœia and at the same time is sold separately it will then be so-and-so's cough medicine and the corresponding name for it in the Pharmacopœia. Again, if the customer asks for so-and-so's cough medicine and it is supplied there is no offence.
In any case, the Amendment does not deal with the difficulty of substances similarly named outside and inside the Pharmacopœia. I can assure my hon. Friend that if someone asks for so-and-so's preparation and gets it, there is no offence. If there is confusion as to what the purchaser asks for, where there is a substance of one sort in the Pharmacopœia and a substance of another sort which is not in the Pharmacopoeia, I suggest that it is for the courts to determine whether there is fraud or not. This is not new.
Sir I. Fraser: May I ask my hon. Friend a question on the point that he has just made? Could I put this half-factual and half-imaginary case to illustrate my point? Suppose that Dr. Brown brings chlorodyne to the notice of the public, advertises it and makes it a valuable article, which it was not before because few people were aware of it. There then comes a moment when it is put in the Pharmacopoeia. Some time later a customer asks for a bottle of chlorodyne. She does not say that she wants Dr. Brown's chlorodyne. She just wants a bottle of the good old chlorodyne which she has faith in. Could not the shopkeeper be prosecuted for not having given her the Pharmacopoeia article instead of Dr. Brown's, because the woman has not specified Dr. Brown's chlorodyne?
Dr. Hill: There has been one case—I think it was the Woolwich case—concerning Californian Syrup of Figs. A person asked for syrup of figs, and got Californian Syrup of Figs, which is a product of a different composition from the syrup of figs in the Pharmacopoeia. That is the one case, but it failed. It was held that there was no desire to deceive and no misrepresentation or fraud.
1838
One is bound to give the answer that this must depend on the circumstances. The substance of my answer is that if a customer asks for a particular preparation and gets that preparation there can be no offence. A great deal of the apprehension of my hon. Friend is misplaced, and I would urge him in the circumstances to withdraw the Amendment. I have not dealt with the second point more fully because it is not affected by the Amendment, but I do assure him that the apprehensions which he feels are not genuinely aroused by the position as it stands.
Mr. Pitman: I thank the Minister for dealing with this matter, but I think he has given me the very points which I am seeking to make. To make my first point, I think I need only read Section 3 of the 1938 Act, which says:
"If a person sells to the prejudice of the purchaser any food or drug which is not of the … substance … demanded …"
I emphasize the word "the" substance—not a substance demanded. The Parliamentary Secretary has conceded the point that there are in such cases two substances however similar, and if his point is that there can be no prosecution I would say that it is much better to state in the Bill that there cannot be a prosecution where the substances are substantially but not identically similar.
My hon. Friend also said that he wants this question to be settled by the courts. I suggest that it is very desirable that the courts should not have to deal with a point which is so very clear in the Parliamentary Secretary's mind that he can assure me that there is no ground for apprehension. If he is convinced of that, let him make the Bill clear so that it is not left to the courts but is clearly indicated to the prosecuting local authorities that they have no grounds for a prosecution, and to courts how they may decide any prosecution dealing with a substance which varies only insignificantly.
I think the Minister's choice of the phrase "cough mixture" is rather unfortunate in that lit is of a character different from "chlorodyne" or any other fanciful name. Of course, there are many different cough mixtures. The point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) related to the case in which

1839
a new name is invented for a new substance and there is only that name. This comes about when the substance is new and is developed and the sale of the article is promoted round the new trade mark.
I speak with a declared interest in this matter and I have been approached by all the bodies I mentioned who are concerned in those cases involving substances where there are variants which differ only insignificantly: cases in which they believe that they should get the protection under the Bill and should not have to go to the court every time for such protection.
Mr. Norman Smith: I hope the Minister will not give way, because behind this Amendment and the speeches of the hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Pitman) and Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) there lies a conception which I would class as a superstition, namely, the curious idea that the popularity of branded goods is indicative of the intrinsic value of those goods.
Most people are well aware that the most important ingredients in the popularity of branded goods are, first, the scale and the efficiency of the advertising and publicity behind them, and, second, and possibly even more important, the cunning and skill with which the packaging is contrived for those goods. After all, many people are artless and credulous. The whole purpose of this Amendment is thoroughly reactionary, and I hope that the Minister will not give way.
Mr. Pitman: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that cases can arise only when the product is so popular and found so effective as to have been adopted officially by the British Pharmacopoeia using the product-name of the originator?
Mr. Smith: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) did not know my grandmother who bought this, that or the other by reason of the package or the publicity and without any regard to testing and assessing.
Amendment negatived.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Harmar Nicholls: The Amendment in my name, in page 2, line 45, to add a new subsection (4) was not selected, but I think that the point behind that Amendment has been strengthened by the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary on the Amendment with which we have just dealt. He said that a question before a court must depend on the circumstances and that the matter must be left to the discretion of the courts.
It was in support of that point of view that my Amendment was drafted, and I hope that even at this late stage the Parliamentary Secretary can give further thought to the idea behind my Amendment.
Clause 2 (3) reads:
"Paragraphs (1) to (3) and paragraph (5) of Section 4 of the principal Act … shall cease to have effect …."
but Section 4 of the principal Act still stands. Section 4 (4) of the principal Act says:
"where the food or drug in question contains some extraneous matter, that the presence of that matter was an unavoidable consequence of the process of collection or preparation."
In those circumstances, that shall be deemed to be a defence.
I suggest that even at this late stage that we should add to Section 4—
The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is now dealing more with his Amendment than with the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
7.30
Mr. Nicholls: I am discussing the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but I am suggesting that it is not too late, on considering this Clause, for the Minister to keep in mind this particular point, and I am suggesting that as an addition to subsection (4) we should add some such words as:
"or that all reasonable precautions had been taken …."—
The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman, in discussing the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" must not discuss additions to it.
Mr. Nicholls: If I may be allowed to proceed with this point, what I am suggesting is that this Bill has still to go through various stages before it gets on to the Statute Book, and all I am saying is that it is still possible for additions and alterations to be made.
Mr. John Paton: That is when the hon. Member can move his Amendment.
Mr. Nicholls: My Amendment was not selected.
The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Member's Amendment was not selected, he must not try to get round that fact.
Mr. Nicholls: If I may, I should like to close with the suggestion that the Minister who is going to reply would find that it would help his endeavours very much indeed to have the addition I have suggested. I would say to him that he ought to leave it to the discretion of the magistrates to take into account all the evidence that is brought, and if they feel able to give an acquittal after considering that all the circumstances surrounding the case warrant it, then I think it would be in the general interest. I plead in support of that point of view the defence the Parliamentary Secretary put up a few minutes ago, that it must depend on the circumstances when they are brought to court.
Mr. Amory: I only want to say a word on Clause 2. I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, that we are not altogether happy about Clause 2, and particularly the reference back to Section 4 (4) of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, and the use of the word "unavoidable." We have considered this point fairly thoroughly, but it is a question of the possible presence of extraneous matters which is really the important issue, and we must take a serious view of that and make sure that there are fairly heavy sanctions here. I think that in all the circumstances, when my hon. Friend thinks about it, he will find that the word "unavoidable" is correct, and if we were to try to replace it with something else we should not be doing full justice to the matter.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(REGULATIONS AS TO COMPOSITION OF FOOD, ETC.)
Mr. Dodds: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, to leave out "requiring."
I can deal with this Amendment in a few seconds because it merely asks for information. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee are wondering why the
1842
word "requiring" is in the Bill at all, and would like an explanation. It seems to us that the Minister, as well as being concerned with prohibiting or regulating the addition of any specified substance, can also require it to be added. We believe that some members of the public might not like the fact that the Ministry is requiring or instructing that some substance should be introduced. If the Parliamentary Secretary will give us an explanation of this curious wording, I am sure it would remove our doubts. We can understand the prohibition or the regulation.
Dr. Hill: It is to give the power that is necessary to make such additions as vitamins to margarine, hitherto dealt with under the Defence Regulation. That kind of power is now sought in permanent legislative form.
Mr. Dodds: In view of the very clear explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, to leave out "such," and to insert "any."
The Deputy-Chairman: With this Amendment we will also take the next two, and also that to Clause 4, page 4, line 13.
Mr. Willey: I am sure that will meet with the Committee's approval.
I want to follow the precedent set by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) in being as brief as possible, and I hope this example will be followed by those on the Government benches, because we are anxious to get on with the Bill. The purpose of this Amendment is to assist in the enforcement of these provisions. It is conceivable that it might widen the scope of the regulation-making power under paragraph (a) if the reference in the last line or two to regulating the composition of "such food" were changed to "any food."
I say at once that we are aware of the definition given in Clause 29, but if we have got a point about that we will have to raise it later when we come to that Clause. But it is conceivable that it might be better to have wider powers under certain circumstances. I am think-

1843
ing of this from the enforcement point of view. It could be that a defence would be put up that the food was not being prepared for human consumption and the circumstances were such that the Ministry might feel that they should regulate the process or treatment. It is for those reasons that I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that it is desirable to extend the provisions to a greater extent than at present.
Dr. Hill: I appreciate the hon. Member's point that some material that would be a subject of a prosecution would not be for human consumption, and that there might be an escape for a defendant who pleaded that the material was for animal consumption. But there are in Section 81 (4) of the parent Act powers dealing with the presumptions to be made where such material is found, and I would particularly direct the hon. Member's attention to subsection 4 (b). I think he will find that the necessary presumptions are there, but I will look into the point again in order to make quite sure that we are doing all that we reasonably can to prevent what the hon. Member has in mind.
Mr. Mitchison: Will the Parliamentary Secretary remember the case of the dead horse? The dead horse is, I believe, in some instances, only destined for human consumption at a comparatively late stage and it would be as well to bear that matter in mind. I doubt whether Section 81 meets that case.
Dr. Hill: I will give an undertaking to give consideration to the dead horse.
Mr. Willey: Without insisting upon the Parliamentary Secretary looking into the dead horse, I am obliged to him for making the position plain and I accept the offer he has made. In regard to Section 81 (4), I had in mind going rather further than that. It is not just a question of a presumption being made, but I think there may be circumstances in which it is undesirable to allow the preparation even though it is for animal consumption. However, in view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr. Stross: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, at the end, to insert:
1844
Provided that no such regulation shall authorise the sale of any article which is without food value or the description of any article of food in terms which are likely to conceal its true nature and composition.
This Amendment falls into two parts. I think it must commend itself to the Committee. The first part is virtually covered word for word by subsection (2) of the Clause. The only difference is that the subsection uses the words "so far as practicable." I would not quarrel either about having the words in or having the words out, for the intention, I am sure, is there. Society cannot afford and does not want to have food that is worthless. The provision as already contained in the Clause came as a result of discussion in another place, where an Amendment was made to provide for the words to which I am now referring.
There are not many worthless foods. Therefore, I do not want to make heavy weather about this matter. By "worthless" foods I mean completely worthless. One about which we have had discussion here by Question and answer is meringues of methyl cellulose. Even that could be useful to people who wanted to eat something to make them grow thin. Perhaps it would commend itself to the Parliamentary Secretary as well as to anybody else who may want it. Obviously, however, a description that tends to deceive people is not a good thing, and, obviously, it is a waste of money to buy completely worthless food. Obviously, too, attempts are being made to prevent that sort of thing happening "so far as practicable"
We are on stronger ground, however, in the second part of the Amendment, because it refers to the description of articles of food in terms that conceal their true nature and composition. That is something any Government must be sensitive about. It is so easy to use descriptions that mislead people, and some are so used. I brought an example to the notice of the former Minister of Food, that of "selected cheese." There was some cheese that was called "selected cheese" and that was sold as such.
Dr. H. Morgan: It smelled.
Dr. Stross: The information came from Birmingham. The Medical Officer of Health at Birmingham noted it, and pointed out that it was cheese made from curd of which all the fatty substance had been taken away. The description

1845
"selected" cheese was likely to deceive people as to the quality, because "selected" means that cheese so described is better than ordinary cheese, better even than Stilton. I can imagine the words "perfection cream" used to describe a cream that is far from perfect. Perhaps this is not the time to discuss the suitable use of words, but we may reach a stage later at which we can discuss how words can be used to deceive the public.
Dr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman himself pointed out that the words in subsection (2) of the Clause go a long way to meet his point, and I think that they probably go as far as it would be reasonable to go. He will appreciate that regulations do not authorise the sale of ingredients, although by implication they may appear to do so. One thing we must carefully avoid asserting is that a food that is nutritionally worthless or an ingredient that is nutritionally worthless is necessarily without some value.
There are some very delightful foods that scientists will tell us are of no nutritional value, but, bless my soul, there are some of them that can give us considerable even if only temporary delight. There are some ingredients in food that are of no nutritional value. I doubt whether colouring matters are really of nutritional value, or whether baking powder is. I could give many examples of these things that are nutritionally worthless but not necessarily without some use in making the food more attractive to the palate and nostrils and so the better digested.
Mr. G. Darling: But surely they should not be advertised as having nutritional value. That is the point.
7.45 p.m.
Dr. Hill: I am coming to the second part about advertisement now. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) pointed out, there are two parts to this Amendment. I would draw his attention to Section 6 of the 1938 Act. It is pretty formidable in its standard, condemning anything which
"… falsely describes that food or drug, or is otherwise calculated to mislead as to its nature, substance or quality."
I would draw his attention also to the provisions about the labelling of food and drugs which we shall come to in Clause 5 So, while I agree with him that his first
1846
point is substantially met by the Amendment that was made in another place, I would point out to him that his second point may arise when we are dealing with the refinements of Section 6 of the original Act, as we shall be when we come to Clause 5 of the Bill. I have no doubt we shall have an opportunity of considering then the additional points he wishes to make.
Mr. Mitchison: I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary has another look at this Amendment, particularly the second part. What is suggested is that no regulation is to authorise the description of any article of food in terms that are likely to conceal its true nature and composition. That is not the kind of thing a regulation does, but the words in subsection (1) are extremely wide and they are extremely vague, and I should find it very hard indeed to say that we could not put into the regulations some provision which might have that effect. That is all, because that is a possibility, and as, clearly, nobody in the Committee will for one instant want anything of the sort to be done, I see no harm in putting in a restriction of this sort when it is, at any rate, an open question whether otherwise we may not have a regulation which authorises in some form or another a misdescription of an article of food.
Look at what the regulations are regulating—
"… the addition of any specified substance … the use of any such substance …"
It is just a general regulation, which does not simply say we may put in only so much of a thing and then sell the article as so-and-so, or that if we put in so much of a thing it must be called this, that and the other, or that if we put in something else it must be called something else. One can think of an infinite variety of regulations under which there could be misdescriptions not authorised in any way by regulations made by Ministers.
This type of Amendment may be made out of caution; perhaps, it may be said, out of excessive caution; but we can also say that the caution is for a good purpose and that it cannot do any harm, and that it may do some good to have in a proviso of this kind. I am not referring to the first part of the Amendment because I am inclined to agree that

1847
that has been met by the other subsection, but I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should look again at the second part of the Amendment, remembering how wide is the word "regulating" in this sort of context.
Mr. Willey: I rise to help the progress of the Bill. I agree largely with what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison); the first part of the Amendment has been met. I appreciate the difficulties of going further but, after all, this was an Amendment accepted in another place because of such points as those which have been made today. The Government have at any rate shown their good intentions in endeavouring to meet these points.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary should look again at the second leg of the Amendment. At the moment it is "Fancy calling Stork margarine," but if the Parliamentary Secretary goes on enthusiastically adding additives to margarine it may be a question of "Fancy calling margarine margarine." This Amendment concerns the possibility that one might change the nature of a substance by insisting, on medical grounds, or on nutritional grounds, on additives being added. It might be unfortunate that the old name should remain and it might be necessary to make it quite clear that we were not concealing its true nature by using a name which was no longer appropriate.
I do not press this as a matter of major importance at the moment, but this legislation will last a long time and I am sure it would not be the Government's purpose to allow these regulations to be used so that there might be a misdescription of some foodstuffs. The Parliamentary Secretary has shown an anxiety to look at these matters again and I hope that he will see whether there is any possibility of meeting this point. I agree that we have another opportunity of dealing with it on Clause 5, and in the circumstances I advise my hon. Friend not to press the Amendment.
Dr. Stross: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Amory: I beg to move, in page 3, line 37, at the end, to insert:
1848
(4) Regulations so made may provide, in relation to such cases as may be specified and subject to such exceptions as may be allowed by or under the regulations, that where any food is certified by a public analyst as being food to which the regulations apply so far as they are made under paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section that food may be treated for the purposes of section ten of the principal Act (which enables food to be seized and condemned on the order of a magistrate) as being unfit for human consumption:
Provided that nothing in any such regulations shall be taken as prejudicing the generality of the powers conferred by the said section ten.
Clause 3 empowers the Ministers of Food and Health to make regulations controlling the composition of food, and this Amendment is to enable the Ministers to provide in such regulations that food not complying with them may be treated as unfit for human consumption for the purpose of Section 10 of the 1938 Act. The Amendment is required because without it food containing prohibited preservatives or prohibited quantities of injurious metals, for instance, cannot be seized. The only thing to do is to prosecute the distributors after the food has gone into the channels of trade.
Hon. Members will, I know, be familiar with the question of oranges and the trouble over thiourea, and that is exactly the kind of case with which we want to deal here. We want to ensure that the injurious food can be seized, if necessary, at the port, and that we do not have to rely on action being taken at too late a stage. I think that hon. Members generally will feel that it is a reasonable thing to do.
Mr. Willey: We are much obliged to the Minister for that explanation. Of course, we accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill"
Mr. Willey: This is a Clause which we welcome. It gives powers to make regulations. At the moment we have the Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is the Government's intention to continue the purpose of those Regulations. Once the Bill becomes law the Government will not wish to continue the powers under the Defence Regulations but will rely upon this Bill, and I ask the

1849
Parliamentary Secretary for an assurance that the purpose of those Regulations will be continued in the powers provided by the Bill.
I want to ask the hon. Gentleman two further questions. The first I have asked before but it arises again under this Clause; it is a request for an assurance that the work of the Food Standards Committee will be continued and pressed forward. It is appreciated, I think, not only by the public but by the trade, that that committee is doing excellent work. As I said in the debate on the previous Clause, its work will provide the basis for what most of us want to see in connection with additives to and subtractions from food.
The other question is rather different. Here we are all showing a keen interest in food hygiene. Can the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that there will be no economy in his establishment at the expense of the food standards division, because it would be wrong to say with one voice that we are doing all we can to promote hygiene and at the same time to allow any economy considerations to affect the excellent work which is being done.
In dealing with additives, the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned margarine. He should also have mentioned bread, because his Government are still insisting, very properly, upon calcium being put into bread. When we were in office hon. Members opposite criticised us for putting chalk in bread. I think the Parliamentary Secretary should do the service of admitting that he is very properly doing what we did.
Dr. Hill: I give the hon. Member the assurance which he requires about the Defence Regulations, and about carrying on the improvements which have been made. It is remarkable how in time of stress it becomes possible to effect improvements which are later incorporated in permanent legislation. It is proposed to continue the work of the Food Standards Committee. I am not aware of any proposal to decrease its scope. Indeed, a subsequent Clause of the Bill will show how it will be necessary to extend the kind of work and investigation which has been associated with the Food Standards Committee in the past.
1850
Dealing with the hon. Gentleman's last question, this delightfully peaceful atmosphere led me to give an example which I thought would be accepted rather than be one which might be the subject of prolonged debate.
Dr. Stross: This is perhaps the most important Clause in the Bill because of the powers which can be used under it, if the Government are so willing, in order to implement what will be an admirable Bill by the time we have finished with it. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) that to limit ourselves to the question of margarine in connection with additives is not fair to those sections of the public which are rather nervous about what are called prophylactic measures being taken on their behalf in order to improve their health. For example, there are some who are nervous about the addition of iodine. I am not nervous about it; I have been the strongest supporter of it but I recognise, and it is recognised by every authority and certainly by the Medical Research Council, that some people are sensitive to the tiniest amount of iodine, and they have to have special consideration.
I have had my doubts about the addition of chalk from the beginning, but that does not matter here. This is not the time to go into the matter, which can be discussed on a future occasion. I know the arguments, of course, both for and against. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to send me a very interesting statement of the whole of the discussion a year or two ago.
8.0 p.m.
Other people are worried about the proposed addition of flourine to their drinking water—I think with some justification—and I am not sure that we shall not be compelled to have a look at that matter again. The Housewives' League, I must assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary, are very disturbed about some of these matters, and they have been campaigning about them for some time. I may perhaps be allowed to quote a sentence or two from an issue of their magazine of 1st January of this year. The Parliamentary Secretary will then see how disturbed they are.

1851
A lady writing says this, after consultations with the Department's officers:
"We are aghast at the evidence of degeneration, physical, mental and spiritual, on every hand. Our only comfort is the knowledge that we at least are not sitting on our bottoms, but are trying to do something"—
Dr. Morgan: Surely no lady would say that.
Dr. Stross: I am quoting—
"however small and however insignificant, even if it is only baking our own good bread in the belief that a little leaven will lighten the whole lump."
I am sure the Committee will realise that it is not fair to leave these ladies in this very uncomfortable position. I think that very frequently the gist of their complaints has good common-sense behind it, and I hope that in future the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend will pay more attention to them.
I now come to the most important part of these regulations. That is the amazing power which the Minister has and which I hope he will now use to protect the public. At an earlier stage, when we were discussing Clause 1, some of us discussed the work of the Delaney Committee. I think that it may be appropriate to consider what is happening there and compare the procedure with what we are trying to do in this Bill.
In fact this Bill is running a race with our American cousins to see who is to be first with a first-class piece of legislation in order to protect ourselves. I know that in February of this year the food, drug and cosmetic journal was describing the legislation to come very shortly before Congress. I do not know whether they have yet passed it. If they have it is as a result of the decisions and the advice which has come from the Delaney Committee, and I think that hon. Members will be interested if I give shortly their four main recommendations.
They were, first, that the increase in use of chemical additives by the food manufacturing industry has created a serious public health problem. I think that we would all agree with that, and we are legislating to make sure that it does not grow to become a serious health problem in our own country.
Secondly, their existing Federal laws do not provide adequate public protection. Nor do ours. Thirdly, before a
1852
chemical is used in, or on, or as a food, it should be subjected to acute and chronic toxicity tests to ensure that so far as possible public health will not be endangered by its use. We agree on that. That is what we are going to do. Fourthly, early legislation should be introduced to provide that before any new chemical is introduced into the food industry, evidence should be submitted to the Food and Drug Administration demonstrating that the chemical is safe and produces no harmful physiological reaction. I was quoting this from the "British Food Journal" of May this year.
I think that there must be some misunderstanding in our minds, because at the end of the article we find these words, in which I think the Parliamentary Secretary will be interested. It says
"This development in the United States is the more interesting in view of the fact that the Food and Drug (Amendment) Bill, now awaiting consideration in our own House of Commons, makes provision for a system of notification of the use of chemical additives to food, which appears somewhat similar to the remedy rejected as inadequate by the Food and Drug Administration in Washington."
I think that they are wrong; at least I hope they are wrong in their criticism. I am pretty sure that they are wrong.
But what they had in mind was the fact that there was a rejection in Washington by the Food and Drug Administration of the suggestion that it was enough for the manufacturer merely to notify the Administration that they were going to use a new chemical. The Administration said, "That just won't do. You must also give us proof that you have subjected it to control and test, and when we have looked at the evidence we must be satisfied that it is safe to use"
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if I am right in belief that we have in mind throughout this Bill that no new substances are to be allowed to come into use unless they have been carefully looked at. Earlier this evening, an hon. Member opposite spoke on behalf of the chemical industry, with which he had been associated, in its defence. I am sure that in this country those associated with the food industry or the chemical manufacturers are not lacking in public responsibility. But it is right that we should, from this House, give a lead to these bodies.

1853
I think that the industry on both sides is waiting for a lead. The way in which it was put in the United States—and I think this is worth mentioning—was that there are three partners in this matter which we are discussing. There is the partnership between three sets of people which will not be broken by legislation of the type which we are now passing, but which will bring about closer cooperation. I refer to the chemical manufacturer, the food industrialist and the food and drug administration, which is ourselves, because we represent the public.
We must not under any circumstances let our cousins get ahead of us on this subject. Why should we not be first? Certainly, we must not lag behind. Our responsibility to the public makes us, I am sure, at least as eager as they are in the United States to demonstrate that public health and the public welfare come before anything else.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(POWER OF MINISTERS TO OBTAIN PARTICULARS OF CERTAIN FOOD INGREDIENTS.)
Mr. Willey: I beg to move in page 4, line 5, after "production," to insert "use."
I will do so very briefly because I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary intends to indicate that the Government will accept it. Here we are dealing with the power of Ministers to obtain particulars. The Amendment deals with the definition of a business. As the Bill stands, that would be a business which includes the production or importation of substances of any class specified in the order.
We are suggesting that this definition would be widened a little if we made the provision read: "A business which includes the production, use or importation of substances." I would emphasise that we are only giving the Minister power to make regulations. He is not obliged to make these regulations; it is a discretionary power which lies with the Minister. I think that there is a good case for widening the definition of "business," and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to indicate that he can accept such an expansion of the definition.
Dr. Hill: It is not quite as simple as the hon. Member suggested. He will appreciate that under this Clause power is given to collect information about substances that are being used, research that is being done on them and the like. Clearly the person from whom to demand that information is the manufacturer or, if the substances are manufactured abroad, the importer. The words which the hon. Member seeks to insert would make it possible to demand such information from those who are using the material.
I do not want to give an extreme example because the hon. Member is raising a serious point, but an extreme example is a bakery using a small quantity of fat extender. In order that the Minister may determine what action he can properly take power is given to require information from the manufacturer of these substances. That is the reason for limiting it to manufacture and importation and not including the word "use."
Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but I should like him to raise his sights and go a little beyond his brief. I would readily agree in ordinary circumstances and accept every word he has said, but I still feel there may be cases in which it would be desirable to get information also from people using the substances.
I cannot see why the hon. Gentleman should hesitate to accept this Amendment. It is not placing an obligation on the Minister that he must do this. This is a new provision. I accept at once the power to obtain information, and I am sure that in the obtaining of this information the Minister will get the utmost co-operation from the food trades. There is good will on this question and such information as may be available should be made available.
All I am suggesting is that the hon. Gentleman should at any rate concede that there may be circumstances in which it would be desirable to go wider than the manufacturer or the importer and to say that there may be information available in other food businesses. The trade would accept the good sense of the Minister. These regulations would be brought to Parliament. Even with a joint Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Food there is, happily, a very good association

1855
between the food trade and the Ministry of Food.
I do not think this provision would cause suspicion. No one would be upset if the power were there. We could rest assured that it would not be exercised unless there were good reasons for saying that the information obtained was incomplete and it was desired to go a little further.
Dr. Hill: I will look most sympathetically at the question of collecting information. I agree that here and there the experience of those who have used the substances may be of value. I will give the matter sympathetic consideration. I hope that, on that understanding, the hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment.
Mr. Mitchison: May I express the hope that when doing that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that one of the particular things about which we ask for information is the use of the substances? Therefore, it is not unreasonable to ask for the information from the person concerned in using them. I suggest that it is wholly unreasonable to refuse the power to ask for that information from people concerned in the use of the substances.
Mr. Willey: I think we have made some impact on the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary and, in view of the assurance given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, to leave out "or regulated."
This Amendment admits of no refutation. Here is a subsection to deal with getting information about substances sold for use in the preparation of food for human consumption. It is not altogether unreasonable that we should expect information about substances the use of which is unregulated, but substances which are regulated, those are ones in respect of which we want this power. I am sure that these words which the Amendment seeks to delete were put in by inadvertence and I move this Amendment with confidence.
Dr. HillIn response to the arguments of the hon. and learned Member I propose to go further and, in reference to the
1856
next Amendment, in line 7, to leave out from "section," to "to," in line 9, to say that on reflection we think we should remove the whole of the words appearing in brackets. That would leave more elbow room for the Minister. In the light of that, and the assurance that we shall seek to remove the words within brackets, perhaps the hon. and learned Member will wish to withdraw the Amendment.
Mr. Mitchison: I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to be undertaking at a later stage to move an Amendment to omit the words in the brackets.
Mr. Amory Mr. Amory indicated assent.
Mr. Mitchison: On that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, in page 4, line 28, after "to," to insert:
"or in any other way affects."
The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas): It might be convenient to consider at the same time the next Amendment in the name of the right hon. Lady, in line 28, at the end, to insert:
(d) particulars of any investigations or inquiries carried out by or to the knowledge of the person carrying on the business in question for the purpose of determining the cumulative effect on the health of a person consuming such substance in ordinary quantities.
Dr. Summerskill: This Clause is concerned with the power of Ministers to obtain particulars of certain food ingredients. I seek to strengthen the power of the Minister, and I hope he will accept the Amendment. If I were in his position I would feel, under the circumstances—the circumstances being that today so many foods have additions made to them and our whole approach in this field is exploratory, as I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree—that none of us can be dogmatic about the effects of new drugs and of some of the foods which have been adulterated. I mean adulterated in its broadest sense, not necessarily by some careless person, but by someone who believes that by making some addition he may be improving the foodstuffs. Nevertheless the effect may be injurious to health or it may affect the individual in some other way.
It is known that certain foods contain mineral oils and, while a small amount

1857
of mineral oils are not injurious, large amounts are injurious. People fear that certain foods may contain fertilisers which may be injurious, but we must recognise, while making this tentative approach to the subject, that these new materials in food may also cause changes in personality.
I put that point to the Parliamentary Secretary. I think that he will agree that certain drugs which have been used during the last few years—and which have been lauded by the medical profession and subsequently by the public as being something very wonderful and which would have an excellent therapeutic effect—have been discovered subsequently to be injurious in so far that they sometimes even affect the personality. I have an idea that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) will develop that point, but I will put it broadly in that sense.
There is no pathological effect, in so far as the expectation of life of the individual is not affected, but the condition as described in this Amendment
"or in any other way affects"
is there. The individual may be affected by something which is in the food, but he need not necessarily develop some pathological condition. That is why I am asking the Minister to accept this Amendment. When he comes to interpret this, I think that he will find it very useful, because he will be able to demand from those people making investigations into these products other information which may be useful to him.
The other Amendment deals with the cumulative effect on the health of the person. Again I would say that in the matter of foods the British are very conservative. It is possible for a family to eat similar foods every day year after year. Again I make my point, that if those foods contain some substance which has an injurious effect, or which affects the individual in some other way, then of course the cumulative effect is even worse. That is why I am asking the Minister to insert these two Amendments. I think it true to say today that there are only two foods which are free from artificial ingredients. There is fish—
Mr. Paton: What about kippers?
Dr. Summerskill: —and wild fruits. I do not know of any other food in the country which is free from artificial ingredients.
Mr. Cyril Bence: Potatoes?
Dr. Summerskill: Potatoes are subject to fertilisers. But fish straight out of the sea is not subject to artificial ingredients. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Paton) said, kippers are subject to artificial ingredients which may be extremely injurious, but I will not develop that.
To press my point, I think that I am right in saying that there are only two foods which we consume today in the 20th century which are free from artificial ingredients, fish—though it may be subject later to some process making it injurious—and wild fruits. That is why I wish to impress on the Minister that he should take the widest powers offered to him. Investigations are being made, as we know, by voluntary organisations, by research organisations, by big drug houses and by all kinds of people. They are investigating these different materials and, therefore—I was going to use the expression used just now by the Parliamentary Secretary—these Amendments would give the Minister more elbow room. I think that in this matter he should be willing to take it.
Mr. Amory: I agree with the right hon. Lady that we want to be sure that we do not exclude any future information that we may want, and we cannot know now exactly what we may want in the future. I consider that she has made out her case and I agree with her.
We do not think that the second Amendment is necessary. We consider that the powers taken under Clause 1 (5) will enable us to get this information. I agree that the British people are conservative about their food. The Parliamentary Secretary and I are both accustomed to having our evening meal at about 7.30. We do not look like getting it at that time tonight, and so we are getting rather hungry. In the circumstances I agree with what the right hon. Lady has said, and we can accept these Amendments.
Dr. Stross: The Committee. I am sure. are greatly obliged because it is true that

1859
the acceptance of these Amendments will give the Government latitude to take such steps as are necessary under contingencies which would not be covered by the term "health" alone. Powers are available in the Bill to take action but it might hamper the courts unless words such as these are added.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 28, at end, insert:
(d) particulars of any investigations or inquiries carried out by or to the knowledge of the person carrying on the business in question for the purpose of determining the cumulative effect on the health of a person consuming such substance in ordinary quantities.—[Dr. Summerskill.]
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(LABELLING, ETC., OF FOOD AND DRUGS.)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I beg to move, in page 5, line 22, after "six," insert:
"but subject to the next following subsection"
This Amendment is preparatory to the Amendment in line 25, at the end, to insert the new subsection (4). I think that it would be convenient for me to address the Committee when we reach the second Amendment, as the Amendment I have moved is merely preparatory and formal.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Higgs: I beg to move, in page 5, line 25, at the end, to insert:
Provided such regulations shall not apply to food prepared or sold with a view to consumption on the premises.
The purpose of subsection (3) of the Clause, at the end of which it is proposed to insert these words, is to give the Minister power to make regulations
"for imposing requirements as to. and otherwise regulating, the labelling, marking or advertising of food …"
The Clause is drawn in very wide terms, and in introducing this Amendment it is not the intention to detract in any way from what I imagine to be the intention of my right hon. Friend in proposing the Clause in that form. If no restriction at all were introduced, the Clause might have some rather surprising results. It is not limited to any particular kind of trade and it would apply
1860
to hotels, restaurants and cafés. It is to this that we wish to draw attention.
No doubt it is most desirable that the Minister should have power to require people who sell food in shops to disclose the contents of what they sell, but it might be considered most undesirable by many that one should compel those who sell food for consumption on the premises to publish on the menu or in advertisements on the walls the exact contents, the nature and the method of preparation of every dish which is served.
8.30 p.m.
On Second Reading we had discussion about a dish sometimes referred to as "angels on horseback" There are on the menus of catering establishments many dishes which the public have long come to regard by what might be described as fancy names. To make regulations requiring the details to be published instead of the fancy name would be to alter the way of life which has been accepted from time immemorial. I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary will be prepared to give an assurance that it is not intended to make regulations which would compel all catering establishments to publish recipes instead of menus. No reasonable person would contemplate doing that, but that is not quite the end of the duty of the House of Commons as I see it.
The power to legislate by way of regulation is one which must be given to Ministers in many connections, and I suppose that food and drugs present one of the widest fields in which it is necessary. Nevertheless, we have a duty to see that the power is as narrowly circumscribed as the case made out by the Minister allows. In other words, if it is not intended to make regulations on a special point, it is our duty to see that power to make them is not given. Therefore, it is our intention in the Amendment to avoid giving power to the Minister to make regulations on a subject on which we do not imagine that he intends to make them.
Dr. Hill: My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) made it clear that he was seeking to prevent this power being interpreted as a requirement to reveal the recipes on menus. It was never intended to do that. I realise that my hon. Friend is entitled to have that assurance. We shall seek ways and

1861
means of giving expression to it. I will look at the matter and consider whether the position can be secured.
However, my hon. Friend will appreciate that the words which he proposes would go far beyond what he said in his speech. I will examine the position to see whether there can be a specific exclusion on the point he has mentioned. and that point only. I hope, in view of what I have said, that he will withdraw the Amendment.
Captain J. A. L. Duncan: Before my hon. Friend asks leave to withdraw the Amendment, as no doubt he will, I wish to stress the last point that he made. Inevitably, in modern times, we are bound to legislate by regulation. We do not like it, but it is inevitable in the modern state. The corollary of that is that the regulating power should be circumscribed to what is necessary, and only to that.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for agreeing to reconsider whether the point can he met on Report. I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) said about the fact that the regulating power should be as restricted as is reasonably possible. That is of constitutional importance in these days.
Mr. Higgs: In view of the assurance which has been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. H. Straw: I beg to move, in page 5, line 25, at the end, to insert:
(4) In relation to the labelling and marking of food with respect to weight, measure and number, the last foregoing subsection shall apply with the substitution for the reference to the Ministers of a reference to the Board of Trade.
The Board of Trade has certain powers to make regulations under the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926. These powers were extended by the Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations, 1943, which were made under emergency powers. Those emergency powers are being repealed by the Bill, but under the powers that we thus had, we have made the Pre-Packed Food (Weights and Measures: Marking) Order, 1950, and an amending Order in 1951.
Those two Orders are preserved under Clause 32, but the powers to make such
1862
Orders are conferred by Clause 5 (3). The effect of the Amendment is to enable the Board of Trade to make labelling regulations concerning the weight, measure and number of articles of food. The Board of Trade is, as hon. Members will realise, the Government Department concerned with weights and measures legislation.
Mr. G. Darling: The Opposition are, of course, not opposing the Amendment, for it is very necessary, but it is also necessary to point to the confusion into which we are getting about consumer protection services.
We have the Minister of Agriculture, who is essentially a Minister in charge of production services in his work as Minister of Agriculture, dealing with the Bill as Minister of Food, and he has told us that he is not likely to have a split mind and that he can look after consumer interests as well as producer interests, which, with all due respect to him, I do not believe. Now we have the Board of Trade coming in. The Prime Minister has said that his mind is not made up about where the consumer protection services in the Ministry of Food are ultimately to go. We have not the faintest idea which Minister, when the legislation is put into force, will be primarily responsible for it.
If I might for a moment be allowed to be out of order, I suggest that we ought also to consider whether the time has not come to set up a Ministry to look after consumer interests generally, taking over the consumer interests which the Board of Trade has, the consumer interests of the Ministry of Food and some of the consumer interests of the Ministry of Health. Let us have a body in our Governmental apparatus which will at last look after the interests of the consumer and nothing else.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Willey: We are dealing here with the powers provided for the Minister regarding labelling, and what disturbs me is that, after all, if this job is to be done thoroughly, it is a question of establishment. One of the victims of the Government's move for economy was precisely the division concerned with labelling, and,

1863
in view of the importance of this Clause and of the powers which, at the moment, are being exercised under Defence Regulations, it was unfortunate that economy should have been made in this field.
It is a pity that the labelling division had to suffer, particularly as this was a field of activity in which there were very close and harmonious relations between the Ministry and the trade, and I am convinced that this sort of job can only be done in that sort of way. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will at least show some repentance about this and will assure the Committee that this matter will be regarded seriously, so that the close liaison which has existed between the Ministry of Food and the food trades will continue and that there will be no endeavour to affect this work by pursuing false ideals. This is one of the most important jobs which the Ministry has done over the past years.
I hope the Minister will reveal the intentions of the Government regarding the labelling of food and drugs by assuring as that, as far as his Department is concerned, there will be no endeavour to weaken this work by further economising at the expense of this establishment. This is an establishment which really fully justifies itself, and if we are to continue with this sort of relationship between the food trades and the Ministry, we shall get what ought to be done without resorting to police activities. This was the sort of work which was very much appreciated, and I feel that there has been some unfortunate lack of confidence in the ending of the labelling division, and that this was an unwise move.
Now the Government have put before us a Clause making permanent the provisions of the Defence Regulations and have assured us that it is the intention of the Government to use these powers in the best way in which they can be used, which is to provide the headquarters establishment with close liaison with the food trades.
Mr. Amory: I know that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) knows my Department a good deal better than I know it myself, and I can only say that when I come to look into these things I shall certainly remember what he has said on this matter.
Mr. G. Darling: The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, from our point of view, are quite right in saying that there is already provision for making sure that people do not make misleading statements in labelling, and so on, and that the publicity which they associate with their products is reasonably true. Even though provision to that end may be there, it is perfectly true that people engaged in the food and drugs trades do make misleading statements about the constitution of the goods they sell, the qualities they attach to them and also their effect.
If we are to make this Measure really effective on behalf of the general public there must be better provision for bringing offenders to book. I am not clear what procedure has to be followed when a person offends this Measure, to make him behave as he should behave under the law.
8.45 p.m.
If we are honest in our intentions to protect the consumer we should make sure that the people who offend by falsely labelling their products can be brought quickly to book and that manufacturers and traders will be afraid to make misleading statements because they will know that they can be brought quickly into court or otherwise dealt with to prevent them going on in their dishonest course.
The enforcement of the legislation ought to be reconsidered, and we ought to have in view the second point which I have made, that we should do the job so effectively that people will be afraid. They will know that they cannot get away with the misleading things of which they have so often been guilty in the past.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(REGULATIONS AS TO FOOD HYGIENE.)
Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 6, line 5, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall."
We have been itching—perhaps I should say, most anxious—to move an Amendment in these terms. We have had similar Amendments on the Notice Paper, but your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Thomas, has not selected them, suggesting that the word "may" be taken out and that the word "shall" inserted.

1865
We feel strongly that we must make the carrying out of the obligations under the Bill mandatory upon the Government. We have got along very well so far with them, and I do not want to upset the atmosphere, but we cannot be satisfied that the Government will use their utmost endeavours to carry out the duties and obligations which are placed upon them by the Bill. We have had experience of the behaviour of the Government with regard to regulations. I do not want to rake up old fires, but that was not a very happy experience. We felt that the Government withdrew largely from their original good intentions, and that if it had not been for the fact that the Bill had to go through its Committee stage we might not have secured the regulations which are now in draft form.
What assurances have we that once the Bill becomes an Act, and if the Government succeed in their intentions, the only powers we shall have will not be to move an annulment of the regulations? While we say that the action taken in this regard should be by regulation, we should make it an obligation on Ministers to make provision by way of regulation. We should define in Clause 6 the matters upon which Ministers should make regulations. After the experience which Ministers' Departments have had over the past few months, I should have thought they would welcome mandatory instructions from the House of Commons. They could then say to the people whom they find it so difficult to stand up to, "Parliament has decided that this is what we shall do."
I have always appreciated the Parliamentary Secretary's interest in these matters, and I should think that he would be anxious to accept the Amendment. Parliament should say that these are the matters about which it requires the Minister to make regulations. We accept the general argument that the form of these regulations will depend on the circumstances obtaining at the time, but there should be no question of the Minister saying that this is only a matter of "may" Parliament, after all, has had time to consider this, and it should say that it believes that under these headings regulations shall be provided.
I hope that the Minister will allow the Parliamentary Secretary to seize this lifeline so that when this Bill becomes an Act the Minister and the Department
1866
can say to those people of whom, apparently, they are most apprehensive and afraid, that it is Parliament which, in the public interest, has decided that we shall have regulations about these matters which are apparently essential to all questions relating to the hygiene of the country.
Mr. F. Blackburn: I wish to support this Amendment. If we take the usually accepted meaning of the word "may," this Clause as it stands could, to put it no higher, have no value because the Government could just please themselves whether or not they produced these regulations. In any case, even if we alter it to the word "shall," the position is not very much better because the Government still have a get-out in the words
"as appear to them to be expedient."
When, on a previous Bill, I raised the question of the words "may" and "shall," I was informed that in Parliamentary language "may" meant "shall." Surely that is nonsense. Surely, in a Parliamentary Bill we should adhere to the same interpretation of the English language as does everybody else. Therefore, if it is the accepted view of the Government that "may" means "shall," let us say "shall" and say exactly what we mean. If "may" does not mean "shall," then it is very important that we should alter the word "may" to "shall" so that the Government shall have no excuse for not carrying out the intentions of themselves and of the House.
Dr. Broughton: The purpose of this Clause is obviously to give the Minister powers to make regulations applicable to food premises in order to raise the standard of hygiene of the catering industry and of the food manufacturing trade. It is merely an enabling Clause, and the legislation becomes valueless unless it is followed by regulations. The details that have to be specified in the regulations are too numerous to be included in the Bill. Therefore, we must have regulations.
I recollect the occasion in February, 1951, when the House first debated this subject of food hygiene. At the end of a day of interesting discussion, the Motion which I was privileged to move was accepted by the House without a Division. That showed the feeling of hon. Members

1867
on this important subject. I am sure that hon. and right hon. Members on both sides still have the same amount of interest in this matter.
Since then, there has been a great deal of propaganda throughout the country. People have become more interested in hygiene. There is, generally speaking, a desire that this Bill should be brought into operation, and should become effective. As far as the clean handling of food is concerned, that can only be done by a Minister making regulations.
The Minister has very kindly let us see his draft regulations and we can assume that they will be issued in due course. I suggest, however, that these regulations will need to be revised from time to time, and future Ministers may be not just as energetic and interested as the present ones. We should, therefore, make it absolutely compulsory on Ministers to make these regulations. The National Caterers' Federation has accepted the need for them. It has gone so far as to draw up proposals which it thinks would be suitable for the Minister to bring into line with his own ideas.
We must also remember that when the subject of food hygiene came to the fore in this country, and clean food guilds were formed, one of the first things they did was to draw up their own codes of practice. I am very pleased to see the hon. and gallant Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) in his place, because he represents a constituency where, for some time, there has been a clean food guild which has done very good work and has excellent regulations of its own. I mention that in order to stress the need for these regulations. They are absolutely essential. Without them I think we might as well scrap the Bill. That being so, we should alter the word "may" to "shall" so that there shall be no doubt whatsoever that the regulations will be made.
Mr. G. Darling: During the Second Reading of the Bill there was, to put it lightly, some confusion about the manner in which the Ministry of Food was seeking the opinion and advice of the trade bodies concerned with regulations, codes of quality, and so on. During that debate the Parliamentary Secretary made it perfectly clear that there would be regulations; that the important matters would
1868
be placed in regulations, and that the less important issues and those difficult to put into regulations would go into voluntary codes of practice.
We have accepted that situation. Indeed, the regulations now proposed by the Ministry of Food—with a few Amendments—are, from our point of view, very satisfactory. The Parliamentary Secretary having made it perfectly clear that there would be regulations, we must insist that he carries out the undertaking, so to speak, which he gave; that in this Bill there will be regulations to cover the important matters which we think ought to be enforced.
We appreciate that we shall never get clean food and the clean handling of food merely by regulation. We must have a campaign of education as well, but, unless we have the minimum regulations in the Act—and have them enforced—it would be quite impossible to get any good effect from educational activities, because the things about which we are educating people will not be carried out.
It is not sufficient for the Minister to have permissive powers. We must lay upon the Ministry responsible for the administration of the Act the obligation to see that the regulations which we have been discussing, which are set out partly in Clause 6 and which will be completely in Clause 6 when our Amendments are accepted, are enforced as the minimum which will be required for a clean food Bill.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Amory: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) that regulations are essential, and I should like to repeat that it is our definite intention to introduce regulations. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have circulated drafts.
The idea has always been accepted in the House that it is bad law to make the power to make regulations mandatory, unless the regulations are specified exactly and in complete detail. Otherwise there is this danger. What limit is there to what the Minister is expected to do? When can it be said that he has discharged his liability? How many regulations must he make? What kind of regulations? Suppose the Minister made a regulation because he had to, and then wanted to revoke it?

1869
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) put his finger on the important point when he said that even if the word "shall" was introduced, should we be very much further? I do not think we should, because it seems to me that the important words are in the first line of Clause 6:
"The Ministers may make such regulations as appear to them to be expedient …."
Those words are surely the governing consideration as to what kind of regulations are likely to result. I feel that in the circumstances it must be right to give the Minister discretion to decide whether he makes regulations, what regulations he makes and when he makes them, unless they are specified exactly in the Bill. I repeat that in this case there is no question that we intend to make regulations.
Mr. Willey: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his assurance. but we still remain not completely satisfied
I appreciate the point he has made about subsection (1), but our endeavours to amend subsection (1) cannot be argued because our Amendments have not been selected. We are, therefore, confined to the matter of the regulations which the Minister thinks expedient to introduce.
We still think that so far as those regulations go, this subsection provides the essential skeleton for them. It says that Parliament has now decided that, while discretion lies with the Minister in deciding what form the regulations may take, the regulations shall provide for these matters which we specify in subsection (2). Owing to our somewhat unfortunate experience about these regulations, I feel that I must recommend my hon. Friends to divide on this Amendment.
Question put, "That 'may' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 213.

Division No. 218.]

AYES

[9.5 p.m.

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

Alport, C. J. M.

Duthie, W. S.

Hurd, A. R.

Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Erroll, F. J.

Hutchison, James (Sootstown)

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Fell, A.

Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

Fin lay, Graeme

Iremonger, T. L.

Astor, Hon. J. J.

Fisher, Nigel

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr J. M

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Baldwin, A. E.

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Keeling, Sir Edward

Banks, Col. C.

Ford, Mrs. Patricia

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Barber, Anthony

Fort, R.

Kerr, H. W.

Barlow, Sir John

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Lambert, Hon. G.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (pollok)

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Bennett. Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Leather, E. H. C.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Birch, Nigel

Glover, D.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Peterfield)

Bishop, F. P.

Godber, J. B.

Lindsay, Martin

Black, C. W.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Boothby, Sir R. J. G.

Gower, H. R.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Bossom, Sir A. C.

Graham, Sir Fergus

Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Bowen, E. R.

Gridley, Sir Arnold

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Longden, Gilbert

Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Brooman-White, R. C.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Browne, Jack (Govan)

Hare, Hon. J. H.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

MaCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Bullard, D. G.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

McKibbin, A. J.

Burden, F. F. A.

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Campbell, Sir David

Heath, Edward

Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

Gary, Sir Robert

Higgs, J. M. C.

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Hill, Dr Charles (Luton)

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Hinchingbrooke, viscount

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Cole, Norman

Hirst, Geoffrey

Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

Colegate, W. A.

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Holt, A. F.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Hope, Lord John

Marples, A. E.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Maude, Angus

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Horobin, I. M.

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C

Crouch, R. F.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Mellor, Sir John

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Molson, A. H. E.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Moore, Sir Thomas

Doughty, C. J. A.

Hughes-Hallet, Vice-Admiral J

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Renton, D. L. M.

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Neave, Airey

Ridsdale, J. E.

Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

Nicholls, Harmar

Robertson, Sir David

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Tilney, John

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Roper, Sir Harold

Turner, H. F. L.

Nugent, G. R. H.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Turton, R. H.

Oakshott, H. D.

Russell, R. S.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Odey, G. W.

Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

Vane, W. M. F.

O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Scott, R. Donald

Vosper, D. F.

Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Wade, D. W.

Page, R. G.

Shepherd, William

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Partridge, E.

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Wall, Major Patrick

Perkins, Sir Robert

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Soames, Capt, C.

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Peyton, J. W. W.

Spearman, A. C. M

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Speir, R. M.

Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster).

Pitman, I. J.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Wellwood, W.

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Stevens, Geoffrey

Williams, Rt Hon. Charles (Torquay)

Powell, J. Enoch

Steward, W. A (Woolwich, W.)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Storey, S.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Prefumo, J. D.

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Wills, G.

Raikes, Sir Victor

Studholme, H. G.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Ramsden, J. E.

Summers, G. S.

Wood, Hon. R.

Rayner, Brig. R.

Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

Redmayne, M.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Remnant, Hon. P.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Sir Cedric Drewe and Mr. Kaberry.

NOES

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Foot, M. M.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Forman, J. C.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Awbery, S. S.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Logan, D. C.

Balfour, A.

Gibson, C. W.

MacColl, J. E.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

McGhee, H. G.

Bartley, P.

Greenwood, Anthony

McInnes, J.

Beattie, J.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Bellanger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Grey, C. F.

McLeavy, F.

Bence, C. R.

Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Blackburn, F.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Blenkinsop, A.

Hale, Leslie

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Boardman, H.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Manuel, A. C.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Bowden, H. W.

Hamilton, W. W.

Mason, Roy

Bowles, F. G

Hannan, W.

Mellish, R. J.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Hardy, E. A.

Messer, Sir F.

Brockway, A. F.

Hargreaves, A.

Mitchison, G. R.

Brook, Dryden (Halifa x)

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

Monslow, W.

Broughton Dr. A. D. D.

Hastings, S.

Moody, A. S.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Hayman, F. H.

Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)

Morley, R.

Burke, W. A.

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Burton, Miss F. E.

Herbison, Miss M.

Mort, D. L.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Moyle, A.

Callaghan, L. J.

Hobson, C. R.

Mulley, F. W.

Carmichael, J.

Holman, P.

Murray, J. D.

Champion, A. J.

Holmes, Horace

Nally, W.

Chapman, W. D.

Houghton, Douglas

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Hoy, J. H.

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

Clunie, J.

Hubbard, T. F.

O'Brien, T.

Collick, P. H.

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Oldfield, W. H.

Collins, V, J.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Oliver, G. H.

Cove, W. G.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Oswald, T.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Padley, W. E.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Daines, P.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Pannell, Charles

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Pargiter, G. A.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

Parker, J.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Jeger, George (Goole)

Paton, J.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Jeger, Mrs. Lena

Peart, T. F.

Deer, G.

Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

Plummer, Sir Lestie

Delargy, H. J.

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech

Popplewell, E.

Dodds, N. N.

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Porter, G.

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Keenan, W.

Proctor, W. T.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Kenyon, C.

Pryde, D. J.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

Rankin, John

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

King, Dr H. M.

Reeves, J.

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Kinley, J.

Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

Fienburgh, W.

Lawson, G. M.

Reid, William (Camlachie)

Finch, H. J.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Rhodes, H.

1872

1873

Richards, R.

Stross, Dr. Barnett

Wheeldon, W. E.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E, Flint)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Swingler, S. T.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Sylvester, G. O.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Wilkins, W. A.

Ross, William

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Willey, F. T.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Williams, David (Neath)

Short, E. W.

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Timmons, J.

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Tomney, F.

Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Usborne, H. C

Willis, E. G.

Skeffington, A. M.

Viant, S. P.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Wallace, H. W,

Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

Warbey, W. N.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

Watkins, T. E.

Yates, V. F.

Sorensen, R. W.

Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Sparks, J. A.

Weitzman, D.

Steele, T.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

West, D. G.

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.

9.15 p.m.
Dr. Broughton: I beg to move, in page 6, line 6, after "layout," to insert "drainage."
When I moved an Amendment earlier the Parliamentary Secretary knew perfectly well that I was employing probing tactics, because I wanted to hear his opinion on the subject which I raised. I failed in my purpose, because he gave such a thoroughly unsatisfactory answer. In moving this Amendment I am not probing. I am hoping that the Minister will give careful consideration to it and that it will be accepted.
First, I am asking the Minister to consider the inclusion of drainage among the requirements to be imposed for food premises. The drainage of premises is sufficiently important to warrant inclusion in the Bill. He has already included construction and layout. The flow from lavatories, wash basins and sinks in properly constructed pipes to a sewer or, in country districts, to a cesspool is of great importance for hygiene, especially in food premises. I suggest that the inclusion of drainage is just as important as the inclusion of ventilation and lighting. When we are considering the drainage of premises we should also bear in mind the question of rain water falling on roofs and pavements, which should be carried away from the buildings. With imperfect drainage there is a danger of wetness and of fouling close to food.
My Amendment to line 8 seeks to insert "water supply" and I think that the inclusion of water supply among requirements for food premises is necessary because of its great importance. There must be an adequate supply of clean water for human consumption, for wash-
1874
ing food, for washing pots, pans and cutlery, for washing people's hands, for washing premises and for flushing lavatories. Food traders cannot operate without clean water, and it is so important that it should be provided in abundance that I suggest that it is worthy of inclusion among the other provisions in the Bill.
Mr. Amory: I agree with what the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) said. These are important things. I shall be glad to accept the Amendment and the further one in his name, to line 8.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: in page 6, line 8. after "lighting," insert "water supply."—[Dr. Broughton.]
Amendment proposed: in page 6, line 11, after "cleansed," to insert:
"and in which refuse is disposed of or stored." —[Dr. Broughton.]
Mr. Amory: I was not clear that this Amendment had been already proposed. It is acceptable to us with the substitution of "or" instead of "and" The word "and" does not seem to fit. If the hon. Member is willing to modify his Amendment to include "or" instead of "and" and you are willing to accept, Sir Charles, that would be acceptable to me.
Amendment agreed to.
The Chairman: The next Amendment selected, in page 6, line 14, after "premises," insert "the disposal of refuse" can be considered with the following two, in line 15.
Dr. Broughton: I beg to move, in page 6, line 14, after "premises," to insert "the disposal of refuse."

1875
I suggest to the Minister that this should be included in the Bill which should state that the Minister may make regulations for the disposal of refuse. The disposal of refuse is very important in catering establishments. If refuse is not properly disposed of it is apt to form a breeding ground for flies and the habits of flies are really disgusting. They are conveyors of food poisoning and other diseases. Refuse can also be used as food by mice and rats. If this provision were included the Minister would have to make regulations about the disposal of refuse, stating the number of dustbins needed and regulations about lids of dustbins being properly fitted and any other points which may come to his mind in connection with this matter.
Mr. Donald Chapman: I wish to refer to the Amendment standing in my name, in line 15, after "of," to insert "clothing."
I happen to own an hotel and because of this experience I looked with some interest at this Clause. It does not mention any regulations governing clothing and the cleanliness of clothing. I am surprised at that because in the draft regulations, circulated prior to the Bill, clothing was particularly mentioned. It is omitted from the Bill, that is an omission which could easily be put right.
In Britain, we are much too tolerant of dirty, food-bespattered clothes of people serving food. A couple of weeks ago on British Railways, which are doing so much to improve this part of our catering services, a man came to serve me and, so to speak, I could have had a couple of meals off his waistcoat. It had become so dirty with food that I was on the point of calling the chief conductor to ask that something should be done about it. I am angry for losing my courage and not doing so. Someone must make these complaints. I am sure that the regulations ought to include rules about the actual cleanliness of the clothing of people who are serving.
This brings me to my second Amendment. I am asking that the word "equipment" be included as well as apparatus. In the Clause, we have, "apparatus, furnishings and utensils." I have an example in mind. What about things like dishcloths? This is terribly
1876
important. Dishcloths are not really apparatus, and I do not think that they are utensils; they certainly are not furnishings. Surely there is a whole lot of minor things like that which ought to be as clean as the rest.
I had this experience. Some time ago, at Victoria Station, where we ought to have the kind of cafeteria or restaurant system which would impress people, especially Americans visiting this country, I went in for a meal in the cafeteria, and I found a man going round with a little trolley clearing up the debris after meals. My secretary was with me, and we both made a note of what happened so that I could raise the matter later. The man going round had the most filthy dishcloth I have ever seen. With it he was wiping the tables on which some people were putting bread, because people do not always put bread on a plate when there is a smooth-topped table. This man had a lovely bandaged finger as a result of a recent out, and presumably was spreading a few germs by this means, as well as by the dishcloth.
I said to him, "Why are you using a dishcloth as filthy as that." He said. "They are issued to us once a week and we have to wait for clean ones until the end of the week. I have told them about it, but they say, 'You must wait for the next issue.'" The same applies to clothing. In Britain we do not have a standard of replacing things as they become dirty. Instead, we say, "There is an issue once a week, and you have got to make it do until the next issue comes along." These things are important, because they spread disease, and I hope that they are important enough for the Government to accept these Amendments.
Mr. Percy Shurmer: I should like to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman), because it is quite easy for people to wear clean aprons or pinafores or white coats. My hon. Friend mentioned a railway station. I went into Nuneaton station a few weeks ago for a cup of tea. The woman who served me had a filthy bandage on her finger, which, I should think, had not been removed for a week. She served me, looking as if she had been wiping the floor like a charwoman, in a dirty old apron. That sort

1877
of thing is happening in a great many places.
I know that people from factories and places like Smithfield Market go into cafés to have a meal in their working clothes, hut there is no need for the tables to be wiped with dirty dishcloths which have been used for two or three days in succession without being properly washed. We are spoiling everything that we are doing with regard to protecting the food of the people unless we try to ensure that the people serving have clean hands and clothing, and, if they have injured their hands, are wearing clean bandages.
Mr. W. E. Padley: As my name appears to the Amendment which raises the question of clothing. I think that it would probably be better if I spoke on this Amendment rather than move another one later. I wish to address my remarks to the Parliamentary Secretary very briefly, because it seems to me that here is an issue about which almost all reasonable people are agreed.
The Chairman: I think it would be better if the hon. Gentleman reserved his remarks, because I propose to call his Amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Mr. Amory: There are no differences between us on this matter, and I can accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton). I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) about the importance of clean clothing, and our draft regulations deal with the cleanliness of over-clothing. I am advised that the inclusion of over-clothing is intra vires, but in order to remove doubt about the matter I am prepared to include clothing here. We are not happy about the place which the hon. Gentleman has chosen for the word, but we will see if we can find a better position in which to insert it. If the hon. Member will not press his Amendment I will see that the word "clothing" is included in some other place in the Clause.
Regarding his second Amendment. I am advised that "apparatus" properly covers "equipment," but to make absolutely sure I see no disadvantage in including the word as he suggested.
Mr. Willey: I am glad to see that the learned Solicitor-General is present, and I feel that I am expressing the view of everyone when I congratulate him on his new appointment. I am sure that he will afford us every assistance in dealing with this Bill.
I wish to ask the Minister if it would be better to accept an Amendment relating to clothing which we have later on the Order Paper. I appreciate the difficulty of dealing with clothing at this stage, because under (b) we are dealing with requirements regarding premises, apparatus and similar matters. But we have a specific Amendment down about clothing which I hope the Minister will be able to accept.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Chapman: I beg to move, in page 6, line 15, after "apparatus," to insert "equipment."
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Stross: I beg to move, in page 6, line 16, at the end, to insert:
"and in particular for imposing requirements that every sanitary convenience situate in such premises shall be supplied with water through a suitable flushing appliance."
I hope that this Amendment will be accepted. The draft regulations provide for exactly this and state why, because it is essential that every effort be made to prevent the contamination of water supplies, and therefore there has to be proper trapping and a proper system of sanitation. One is conversant with the fact that where water is not available there will have to be exceptions to this regulation. I am sure that that is provided for in draft Regulation 31, under which local authorities are able to obtain exemption in cases where it is impossible to carry this regulation into effect.
Mr. Amory: The powers granted in Clause 6 would perfectly well enable regulations to be made to require that every sanitary convenience is supplied with water through a suitable flushing appliance. That is what we want. Therefore, we do not consider that, strictly speaking, the Amendment is necessary. However, such pleasant harmony is prevailing and we are so anxious that the spirit which has become infectious should persist throughout our discussions, that, as there is no difference in

1879
principle or in intention, I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, in page 6, line 22, at the end, to insert:
(d) for requiring the medical examination of persons engaged in preparing, handling, wrap- ping or delivering food and for prohibiting such persons suffering from, or being the carriers of, infection or disease from being so engaged and for providing for the compensation of any persons so prohibited.
I hope that the Minister will be equally sympathetic to this Amendment. On Second Reading, in July, I spoke very strongly about the omission of certain provisions from the draft regulations. I am pleased to see that the Minister has had second thoughts since then and that the regulations have been strengthened considerably. Nevertheless, there are still most important omissions. The intention of the Amendment is to strengthen the regulations. It asks that those who work in the food industry should have a medical examination.
On Second Reading, the Parliamentary Secretary expressed the opinion that any person suffering from dermatitis should certainly not be allowed to handle or pack food. Hon. Members, naturally, accepted that. Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that anybody suffering from active tuberculosis equally should be excluded from the handling or packing of food. I am sure that the Minister of Health will agree. The Amendment merely asks that people who suffer from diseases which might be infectious and which might be transmitted through the food to consumers should be examined.
It might be argued that this would cost money but fortunately, thanks to a previous Labour Government, we have a free Health Service. The result is that anybody who wants a checkup can have it from his doctor without charge. I remind the Minister that any person who takes a position in the Civil Service of a minor character—a telephonist, for example—is compelled to have a medical examination before he or she is accepted. Surely, in the interests of the public the Amendment should be accepted.
The hour is getting late. The Minister has been most sympathetic. The argu-
1880
ments so far deployed must have convinced him that we are anxious to strengthen the Bill and, at the same time, to protect the public.
Mr. Padley: I speak as president of one of the trade unions most concerned in the matter. It is not my function, as a trade union leader, to enter the contest between the doctors as to which diseases render a person unfit for the handling of food. That is a medical question to be settled on medical grounds. When the draft regulations were sent to the trade unions it was significant that no trade union with workers employed in the food industries objected to them. The sole point on which representations were made related to the question of compensation.
There are two very sound grounds for explicitly providing compensation for workers who are affected by the regulations. First, it is desirable for the worker not to seek to hide such a disease, for that would be opposed to the public interest, and, therefore, to give the worker some sense of security is strongly in the public interest.
There is also the question of justice. The regulations suggested by the Minister cover typhoid and paratyphoid. I had a very difficult case to handle in my constituency two years ago. A middle-aged woman was found to be a paratyphoid carrier. She was not aware of it; it was suddenly discovered. The medical officer of health, acting under existing regulations, had to declare her unfit for certain occupations.
Very great problems arose. Was the lady entitled to sickness benefit under the National Insurance Act? Was she entitled to unemployment benefit? When she was offered employment nine miles away in light industry and declined to go, she was denied unemployment benefit. Then her entitlement to National Assistance came under dispute. When my constituent came to me, she felt a hounded and hunted creature. As a result of correspondence between myself and the Ministers of Health and National Insurance, we found ways and means of dealing with those problems.
However, the House is about to approve new legislation under which regulations will be issued, and I feel that this is the time for it to declare in a

1881
most emphatic manner that, while it is of great national importance that carriers of infectious diseases and persons with diseases which are likely to be injurious to public health should not handle foodstuffs, there should be no repetition of the hounding and hunting suffered by my constituent. Consequently, I hope that the Minister will accept the very strongly held view of the trade unions that side by side with regulations of this kind there should be explicit provision for compensation payments to the workers concerned.
Sir Frederick Messer: I consider the Amendment to be important especially in regard to dermatitis, a disease which is by no means uncommon in the confectionery industry. It can be contracted by contact with dust, oils, certain acids and flour.
The difficulty about dermatitis is that although a short time after one has contracted it every sign of it may disappear, whenever the case again comes in contact with the substance which gave rise to the infection it will break out again. Sugar may be responsible for a girl in a sweet factory having dermatitis, but if she leaves her job, there is nothing to prevent her from working in another sweet factory.
The difficulty does not end there. If a girl suffering from dermatitis washes her hands and wipes them on a towel which somebody else uses, the other person will contract the disease. There are, therefore, two sides to it. One is that it can be caught by other people, and the other is the danger arising from anybody suffering from a disease of that description using their naked hands in the manufacture of food of any sort.
I realise that this is one aspect of the matter, and that there are others. A tuberculosis contact is a danger to all those people working in association with that contact, but that particular aspect is not quite so acute as the one to which I have referred, in which the very industry itself can be responsible for the creation of the disease. I therefore support the Amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Dr. Stross: I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) on this question of transmitting dermatitis from one person to another. If my hon. Friend means
1882
industrial dermatitis, which is a disease due to an irritant, I agree that that view is commonly held, and that it results in many people who are perfectly healthy being disinclined to work with someone else who has industrial dermatitis, although we know that there is nothing contagious or infectious about it, in any case, unless there should be a secondary infection. Of course, I entirely agree that such people should not be handling food, because of the risk of secondary infection.
My right hon. Friend, in moving this Amendment, had in mind the question whether we might think in terms of two types of medical examination—a simple type carried out through the family doctor, and another where there is any suspicion or certainty that anybody has become a carrier of an infectious disease. In those few cases, there will have to be a more extensive and more careful examination before such people are given a clean bill of health. I refer to a person suspected of being a carrier of paratyphoid, in which case there would have to be a bacteriological examination, and a hospital would have to be brought into the picture. We must bear that in mind.
As far as compensation for those who are judged to be carriers of disease are concerned, I am sure we all accept the desirability of compensation to nurses who contract tuberculosis in the course of their work, and we might reasonably extend it to cover these cases as well.
Dr. Hill: I had read this Amendment in a rather different sense from the one which has just been put upon it by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), and it seems to me to make possible the making of regulations to require a medical examination of certain types of person. If we are searching for carriers of disease, that would certainly be one of the most important purposes, but it would be a most extensive examination that would be involved—a most detailed bacteriological examination. There is a principle here in requiring persons within certain categories to submit themselves to medical examination, and I can only say that I do not like it.
Before we reach a conclusion, however, let us look at the existing provisions. Whatever else may be said, this is a most important point in securing the prevention of the spread of infection in this way.

1883.
It is dealt with in public health legislation and in infectious diseases regulations, and, at the instance of a medical officer of health, a local authority can today exclude a person who, in his opinion, is suffering from, or is shown to be a carrier of, certain listed infections. That list is adequate for present purposes and can be extended if necessary.
That is the first point. If it is decided to exclude the food handler under these Regulations, that food handler is entitled to make a claim for compensation. The draft Regulations which it is proposed to make when the Bill becomes law, seek to carry that matter a little further. Regulation 8 proposes to provide—
Mr. A. J. Champion: On a point of order. I hear constant reference to draft Regulations. Are those draft Regulations generally available to the Committee? If so, where can we obtain them?
The Chairman: That is not a point of order.
Dr. Hill: I shall be glad to supply them to the hon. Member. They are items for inclusion in a code which is still the subject of consultation. It is the third draft. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has copies, and I shall be glad to let any hon. Member have a copy. I hope that the point of order will not be pressed because I want to deal with the very important point that has been raised.
It is proposed, if the Bill becomes law, to make regulations which will provide that if a person engaged in the handling of food becomes aware that he is suffering from one of a list of diseases, which can be extended for the purpose, he is to give notice of the fact to the occupier of the premises, who is required to notify the medical officer of health. That does not go the whole way which the right hon. Lady would wish but it leads us to the position that when a sufferer has made known his condition the machinery can be set going for compensation, if required to discontinue work, and, of course, for so discontinuing.
I do not pretend that this is ideal, but I suggest that the other proposal in the Amendment of medical investigation of I believe about 180,000 people engaged in
1884
these trades—a large number—means that the examination will have to be regular and repeated if it is to be of value. The examination will have to be of a detailed bacteriological kind if it is to reveal a carrier. That is something too formidable and not without its difficulties of principle. We should develop and proceed along the lines of the Infectious Diseases Regulations, modified it may well be by regulations made under the Bill.
Mr. Champion: Further to the point of order that I raised just now. The Minister has made reference to a document. Is it not the case that when a Minister makes references to a document of that sort the document is then made available to the whole Committee?
The Chairman: The Minister did not quote the document. So far as I am concerned, there is no point of order. Whether these documents are available or not I cannot answer.
Mr. Willey: The Parliamentary Secretary has given us a most disappointing reply. We appreciate that some advance has been made in the draft Regulations. We do not complain of that. The hon. Gentleman's approach to this problem is not as helpful as we expected. I do not intend to deal with the medical side of the matter but will leave that to the hon. Member. I want to put two points to the Parliamentary Secretary.
The Bill very largely arises from working parties' reports. The Meat Product Working Party Report made it one of its recommendations that the Department concerned should
"give immediate consideration to the extension of the relevant provisions of the Public Health (Infectious Diseases) Regulations, 1927, and to the infectious diseases that cause food poisoning."
The Catering Working Party made recommendations, of which No. 10 said:
"Consideration should be given to the desirability of amending the Public Health (Infectious Diseases) Regulations, 1927, … by extending their scope as far as practicable, taking account of the problem of compensation."
It considered that the regulations relating to the paratyphoid diseases and dysentery should become applicable to the various food poisoning infections and other infections which may be spread by food. In view of the specific recommendations

1885
made by both working parties, it is incumbent on the Government themselves to make proposals for this legislation.
My hon. Friends have pressed an Amendment which would give the Government power to do what both working parties have recommended, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to think again about this. As I say, both working parties made this cardinal point in their recommendations. When the Parliamentary Secretary says that there are difficulties about this, I would point out that all we are doing is to give powers. I am leaving the medical aspect to my right hon. Friend, but I should have thought that, in view of the recommendations of both working parties which examined the problem of the catering and meat products trades, the Government could accept the Amendment.
Dr. Stross: I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary really answered
the point I put to him, which is that if, for argument's sake, he cannot give way on the whole of this, why not consider the question of new entrants bringing with them a certificate of fitness upon entering industry? After all, one has to start somewhere.
Dr. Hill: With respect, fitness to enter industry is quite a different point. This is a detailed scrutiny of the man in the job, not in relation to his own physique or health, but in relation to the hazards which he may present to others.
Dr. Summerskill: In view of the unsatisfactory reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, I must ask my hon. Friends to divide the Committee.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 231.

Division No. 219.]

AYES

[9.58 p.m.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Kenyon, C.

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Fienburgh, W.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Finch, H. J.

King, Dr. H. M.

Awbery, S. S.

Foot, M. M.

Kinley, J.

Balfour, A.

Forman, J. C.

Lawson, G. M.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Bartley, P.

Gibson, C. W.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Beattie, J.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

Greenwood, Anthony

Logan, D. G.

Bence, C. R.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

MacColl, J. E.

Beswick, F.

Grey, C. F.

McGhee, H. G.

Blackburn, F.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

McInnes, J.

Blenkinsop, A.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Boardman, H.

Hale, Leslie

McLeavy, F.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Bowden, H. W.

Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Bowles, F. G.

Hamilton., W. W.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Hannan, W.

Manuel, A. C.

Brockway, A. F.

Hardy, E. A.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Hargreaves, A.

Mason, Roy

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D,

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

Mellish, R. J.

Brown, Rt. Hen. George (Belper)

Hastings, S.

Messer, Sir F.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Hayman, F. H.

Mitchison, G. R.

Burke, W. A.

Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)

Monslow, W.

Burton, Miss F. E.

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

Moody, A. S.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Herbison, Miss M.

Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

Callaghan, L. J.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Morley, R.

Carmichael, J.

Hobson, C. R.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Champion, A. J.

Holman, P.

Mort, D. L.

Chapman, W. D.

Holmes, Horace

Moyle, A.

Clunie, J.

Houghton, Douglas

Mulley, F. W.

Collick, P. H.

Hoy, J. H.

Murray, J. D.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Hubbard, T. F.

Nally, W.

Grossman, R. H. S.

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Collins, V. J.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

O'Brien, T.

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Oldfield, W. H.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Oliver, G. H.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Oswald, T.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Padley, W. E.

Deer, G.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Delargy, H. J.

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Dodds, N. N.

Jeger, Mrs. Lena

Pannell, Charles

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

Pargiter, G. A.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Parker, J.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Paton, J.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech

Peart, T. F.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Keenan, W.

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Popplewell, E.

Skeffington, A. M.

Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

Porter, G.

Mater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Weitzman, D.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Slater, J (Durham, Sedgefield)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Proctor, W. T.

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

West, D. G.

Pryde, D. J.

Sorensen, R. W.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Rankin, John

Sparks, J. A.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Reeves, J,

Steele, T.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Reid, William (Camlachie)

Stross, Dr. Barnett

Wilkins, W. A.

Rhodes, H.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Willey, F. T.

Richards, R.

Sylvester, G. O.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

Willis, E. G.

Ross, William

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Timmons, J.

Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

Short, E. W.

Tomney, F.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Usborne, H. C.

Yates, V. F.

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Viant, S. P.

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Warbey, W. N.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Watkins, T. E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wallace.

NOES

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

Fort, R.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Alport, C. J. M.

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Longden, Gilbert

Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Ansthruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

Garner-Evans, E. H.

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Aster, Hon. J. J.

Glover, D.

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Godber, J. B.

McKibbin, A. J.

Baldwin, A. E.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Banks Col., C.

Gower, H. R.

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Barber, Anthony

Graham, Sir Fergus

Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

Barlow, Sir John

Gridley, Sir Arnold

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Harden, J. R. E.

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Hare, Hon. J. H.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Birch, Nigel

Harris, Frederic (Croyden, N.)

Marples, A. E.

Bishop, F. P.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

Black, C. W.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Maude, Angus

Boothby, Sir R. J. G

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

Bossom, Sir A. C.

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Bowen, E. R.

Heath, Edward

Mellor, Sir John

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

Higgs, J. M. C.

Molson, A. H. E.

Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

Moore, Sir Thomas

Brooman-White, R. C.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Browne, Jack (Govan)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Neave, Airey

Bullard, D. G.

Holt, A. F.

Nicholls, Harmar

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Hope, Lord John

Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

Burden, F. F. A.

Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Campbell, Sir David

Horobin, I. M.

Nugent, G. R. H

Cary, Sir Robert

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Oakshott, H. D.

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Odey, G. W.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Cole, Norman

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Colegate, W. A.

Hughes-Hallet, Vice-Admiral J.

Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

Page, R. G.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hurd, A. R.

Partridge, E.

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

Perkins, Sir Robert

Crouch, R. F.

Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

Peyton, J. W. W.

Deedes, W. F.

Iremonger, T. L.

Pickthorn, K. W. M

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Pitman, I. J.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Doughty, S. J. A.

Keeling, Sir Edward

Powell, J. Enoch

Drewe, Sir C.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Price, Henry (Lewisham W.)

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Kerr, H. W.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Duthie, W. S.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Profumo, J. D.

Elliot, fit. Hon. W. E.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Raikes, Sir Victor

Erroll, F. J.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Ramsden, J. E.

Fell, A.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Rayner, Brig. R.

Finlay, Graeme

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Redmayne, M.

Fisher, Nigel

Lindsay, Martin

Remnant, Hon. P.

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Renton, D. L. M.

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Ridsdale, J. E.

Ford, Mrs. Patricia

Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Robertson, Sir David

1888

1889

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Wade, D. W.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Roper, Sir Harold

Storey, S.

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Wall, Major Patrick

Russell, R. S.

Summers, G. S.

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Scott, R. Donald

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

Scott-Miller, Comdr. R.

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Wellwood, W.

Shepherd, William

Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Tilney, John

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Soames, Capt. C.

Turner, H. F. L.

Wills, G.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Turton, R. H.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Speir, R. M.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Wood, Hon. R.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Vane, W. M. F.

Stevens, Geoffrey

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

Vosper, D. F.

Mr. Studholme and Mr. Kaberry.

It being Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

LEGAL AID SCHEME (EXTENSION)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]
10.8 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Skeffington: May I first offer my congratulations, which I am sure will be shared by the whole House, to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General on his appointment to his present high legal office. We all know from experience the very great talents which he will bring to bear. I suppose I can say that with some authority, because I sat opposite him for some 15 or 16 sittings of the Committee stage of the Landlord and Tenant Bill upstairs when he commended and defended with great charm and skill what I thought were some quite outrageous propositions. Nevertheless we wish the right hon. and learned Gentleman every success in his present office.
I must say, in apology to the Attorney-General, that my title for this evening's debate is not quite accurate. I make reference to bringing into operation Part
II of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949. I had overlooked the fact that the Section dealing with advice centres, which I am eager to see established, is contained in Section 7 of Part I. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that Amendment. I informed his office yesterday that I proposed to include that matter in my representations this evening.
1890
I think the Attorney-General will appreciate that there is a very widespread desire and hope that the remaining parts of this very useful Act will soon be implemented. There have been a number of indications about this recently. I notice there were four Questions yesterday on the subject, and I gather from the not very forthcoming reply that at least the matter was under earnest consideration.
Some time ago the National Council for Social Service called a conference of those interested in giving legal advice and in close touch with social problems. As a result of the conference a memorandum was prepared, which I gather went to the Lord Chancellor. It also made very urgent representations for something to be done to bring the remaining Sections into operation.
Then at the recent Labour Party Conference at Scarborough a resolution was unanimously accepted urging that these remaining Sections be brought into force. I mention it in particular not only because it was unanimously accepted, but also because it happened to be moved by the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society, which is the second largest co-operative society in the United Kingdom, with a membership of more than 360,000 persons. In their experience there is a very great need for the scheme. From such inquiries as I have been able to make, even in the serried ranks which are usually behind the right hon. and learned Gentleman but not at the moment, there is a good deal of support for something being done to bring in the remaining parts of the Act.
At present legal aid and assistance under the 1949 Act is limited to assistance in certain criminal cases and in the High Court. I know from my own limited experience, and

1891
also from information supplied to me by colleagues of mine who are much more experienced, that this scheme has worked very well, and that it has brought a large measure of justice and satisfaction to those with small and moderate incomes because proper advice and representation have been made available to them for the first time in our history.
I suppose there have been some cases of abuse, but I am told by those who administer the scheme that on investigation there has been, in fact, very little misuse indeed. Unfortunately, as in other matters, if there is a case which is open to some stricture that gets all the publicity. There was an instance not so very long ago in which I think it was the Lord Chief Justice who said that it was a case in which legal aid ought never to have been granted. It was some squabble about gifts between husband and wife. He added that that was not the fault of the certifying committee. Of course, the first criticism was reported, but the second remark was not.
In this connection we should remember that there is a safeguard in the operation of the scheme which would apply to the remaining Sections as it applies to the others. In any case where assistance is required it is subject to scrutiny and investigation by members of one or the other branch of the profession. This scheme seems to have worked very well, and is really a great safeguard against abuse.
The problem now is to get assistance for cases in the police courts and in the county courts, and to back that up with an adequate national system of advice centres throughout the country. I suppose the police courts and the county courts deal with some 98 per cent. of all litigation in the country.
The county courts are really the great social courts for masses of people. There it is that the problems of their wills, their homes, their inheritances, their nuisances and many other matters are dealt with. Of course, the police courts, apart from the other matters with which they deal, are the matrimonial courts for millions of our fellow countrymen, and yet it is precisely in those courts, where the overwhelming mass of litigation goes—those courts touching so nearly the family and
1892
the home—that there is no assistance or advice available.
Let the House just think of some of the types of cases in which, I think anyone who is familiar with them will agree, advice, and often representation, is highly desirable. Apart from the common law cases there are cases obviously affecting family life under the Married Women's Property Act, the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, the Guardianship of Infants Act, the Acts relating to adoption, and the Inheritance Act, 1938. Voluntarily and often involuntarily people are involved in cases under those statutes, and even though the sums involved may not be large the very nature of the legislation is such, it seems to me, that skilled advice is generally indispensable not only for speedy remedy but also for justice.
Then there are all the cases which arise out of accidents and the abolition of the doctrine of common employment. This has added a great deal to the litigation which is bound to arise. Some of it, I know, goes to the High Court, but a quite considerable amount can and ought to be dealt with in the county court where it could be dealt with if the remaining parts of the Legal Aid and Advice Act were in operation.
There has been a great growth of the statutory Regulations dealing with safety, which I am glad to see; but again, representation is often almost indispensable if confidence is to be created in the minds of those involved and full justice done. There is now also, of course, a whole series of actions that arise before tribunals in connection with pensions and insurance and rents. I am quite sure nobody will quarrel with me when I say that in those actions skilled advice and very often representation ought to be available.
Apart from the cases arising out of accidents and before tribunals and affecting the family, there are problems affecting the home. Everybody knows that the Rent Acts comprise one of the most complicated branches of our legal system. Judges of the Appeal Court are continually complaining that they do not understand the Acts.
I cannot remember now who it was, but one learned judge said that this complicated mass of verbiage was harrying judges to an early grave. Having regard

1893
to the average length of life upon the Bench I am not certain that the latter part of the remark is correct, but there is no doubt about the uncertainty in this branch of the law, and it does affect the homes in which the people live. If there are difficulties for judges the House will realise the need for help for the layman. These matters come before the county courts, and, as I said earlier, those are the very places where no skilled, professional assistance is available.
The Government have added very considerably to the complication of the Rent Acts by the recent Housing Repairs and Rents Act and by the Landlord and Tenant Act, which deals with relations under the leasehold law. There are certain remedies available to tenants and to landlords, and there are poor landlords as well as rich landlords. I feel that the rights of a great many of them may go by default unless help is available to them.
There are a great many people who have to be persuaded that there is nothing terrifying in going to a county court to get a matter settled. If they cannot get the expert and accurate advice that is necessary a great deal of injustice inevitably arises. I feel sure that most people will agree that that is true.
I have tried to make a calculation of the number of people who will he involved if the remaining Sections of the Act are brought into force. I am not suggesting that every one of these will be engaged in litigation, but, having regard to the income limitation on those who can apply, there are probably about 16 million people who would be entitled to benefit from advice and assistance if they needed it. I very much hope that we shall hear from the Attorney-General tonight something which will give this considerable section of the population some hope for the future.
The scheme is sometimes called free legal aid but it is not free legal aid except in a relatively small number of cases, because, according to the Schedule to the Act, people are expected to make their own contribution to the costs. That is another reason which I hope will persuade the Government to take the plunge.
At present, for the vast majority of the kind of cases which I have been discussing—family cases, matrimonial
1894
cases dealt with in the police court, the question of homes dealt with in the county courts and accidents—very little other assistance is available. I salute, as I am sure we all salute, the work which has been done in the past by what is called the poor man's lawyer and by the legal aid centres. There are only two of these centres remaining in the whole of London. They do magnificent work.
Cambridge House is one in the constituency which I represent in another place, and I know it very well. There they deal with some 4,000 cases a year, but by their rules they are not allowed to deal with any one who has an income of more than £4 a week. The two legal aid centres in London, the Mary Ward Settlement and Cambridge House, are together dealing with about 8,000 cases which come within this limited income range.
They are most deserving cases, including widows, deserted wives and unemployed persons, but they form just a fringe of the cases in which assistance ought to be made available. So highly does the L.C.C. think of their work that, although it is not a direct responsibility of the L.C.C., the council has made available some funds to keep these two centres going in the hope that it will not be too long before a national service of advice is made available.
Nevertheless, as was shown at the conference called by the National Council of Social Service, whole areas in the country have no assistance available at all. There are great towns with not a single place to which a poor litigant can go for advice. I am sure that that defect fills us all with remorse.
I am told that the cost of implementing the remaining parts of the scheme would be about £1 million—that is to say, £1 million in Government grant in addition to that contribution which the litigants themselves make according to their incomes. I do not want to make any misleading comparisons with the cost of an aircraft carrier—£12 million or whatever it may be—but is it fair to say that, with a national income of more than £12,000 million and a Budget of more than £4.000 million, £1 million which would ensure a measure of justice to a wide section of

1895
the population cannot be found? Personally, I do not think the reasons given justified the previous failure to implement the later Sections of the Act in 1949. I am certain, however, that the same excuse ought not to be put forward today.
If it is a question of deciding priorities, then I suggest that, as a first step, the legal advice centres should be introduced, because a great many of the troubles and worries which afflict these people could be solved by competent profesional advice and without litigation. A speedy decision ought to be made, because I am told that it will take three or four years to organise a system of that kind, even if a decision were given at once.
I do not know whether any other hon. Members wish to intervene, but I wish to give them time if they want to do so, and also give plenty of time to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to reply. I will, therefore, say in conclusion, and I do not want to appear pompous in saying this, that I believe that there is much in our British system of justice of which we can all be proud. Its defect has been that it has not been equally available to everyone, and has depended upon the resources and advice for which one can pay. It has been said by one famous judge, that justice is available to the public in the same way as the Ritz Hotel is available, and on the same terms. That is not in keeping with the social climate of 1954.
I hope that we shall hear that further and decisive steps will be taken to bring advice and assistance to millions of our fellow countrymen who are, at least in part, denied it at the present time.
10.27 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I should like to begin by thanking the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) for his very kind observations about myself, which I greatly appreciate. When he said that some of the Clauses of the Landlord and Tenant Bill, as it was, were indefensible, I beg to differ from him, but I do appreciate the kind things which he has said.
The hon. Member has put forward a reasoned case for the expansion of legal aid and legal advice. As I listened to him, I was not at all sure that I did
1896
not make very much the same speech as he has now made when the Government which he then supported declared that they were not prepared to implement the full provisions of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949. I was, of course, unable to support my argument by the advantage of being able to refer to what must be an almost unique incident—a unanimous resolution at the Labour Party Conference at Scarborough.
I must say—and I was interested to hear that the hon. Gentleman really agreed with me—that the announcement —I think it was in 1949—that the whole scheme could not be implemented then was a great disappointment to me. I happened to serve on the Rushcliffe Committee, and my old colleague in the Temple, Mr. Moelwyn Hughes, then a member of the Socialist Party and a Member of this House also, served on that Committee. We presented a unanimous Report, the major features of which are now embodied in the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949.
That was an interesting Measure in its passage through this House, because the members of the Committee which dealt with that Bill were united in their endeavours to try to make it the best possible workable Measure. I am not suggesting that the Government of that day were wrong, having regard to the financial position of the country at that time, in not seeking to implement all the provisions of that Act. But the hon. Gentleman, who is now pressing for the full implementation of that Measure, is clearly recognising that a considerable improvement has, in fact, taken place in the financial situation of the country since 1951.
I was asked a number of Questions about legal aid yesterday. As I said then, the case for the extension of legal aid to the county courts is strengthened by the provisions of the Housing (Repairs and Rents) Act and the Landlord and Tenant Act. Although I fear it will disappoint the hon. Gentleman, I cannot acid anything to what I said yesterday. What I said then was that the position with regard to legal aid is being closely considered by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor at the present time.
There have, of course, been isolated criticisms of the legal aid system as it has operated up till now. One must

1897
expect some criticisms when a new scheme of this character is introduced, but, by and large, I believe that the recommendations of the Rushcliffe Committee, embodied, as they are, in the 1949 Act, are on the right lines and that these teething troubles will disappear.
The hon. Gentleman made out the case for the extension of legal aid to the magistrates' courts and the county courts and also for the extension of the advice system recommended by the Rushcliffe Committee. I would agree with him in that I regard all of those as important and as constituting an important social service, but if it came to a choice between the three of them I should have thought, speaking personally, that legal aid in the county courts should have priority over the institution of the advice system.
When I say that it comes to a question of choosing between the different possibilities, one must, of course, recognise that the full implementation of the scheme will involve a substantial extra burden upon the Exchequer. One may speculate upon the extent of that burden and one may seek to estimate it, but no one can deny that it will be a substantial charge upon the Exchequer; and in determining whether the money available, if there is any money available, can be spent on the implementation of this scheme, one must have regard to the other claims upon the Exchequer.
However, if, as I say, the choice has to be made between extending legal aid to the county courts or to the magistrates' courts or to the extension of the advice centres, I should say that legal aid in the county courts should have priority. I say that because it does not seem to me to be very helpful if we institute a legal advice system throughout the country and people are advised at the centres that they should take proceedings in the county court and then there is no legal aid system available to assist them to take those proceedings.
I fully recognise that the institution of the advice centres may lead to the diminution of litigation and the settlement of a lot of matrimonial disputes. There is a strong case for the imple-
1898
mentation of the Act as a whole—there was in 1949, and there is now—but, as I say, the whole matter depends upon what the cost is estimated to be and the other claims upon the Exchequer in respect of any funds which may be available.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the great work which is being done by the voluntary organisations. I must say that it was a most unfortunate consequence of the passage of the Legal Aid and Advice Bill, and of that Measure when it became an Act not being implemented in full, that the support of these voluntary organisations declined. That is very unfortunate, and from my knowledge of their activities I should like to pay my tribute to them for the great work that they have done in the past and are doing at the present time.
I am sure that those voluntary organisations are well worthy of public support. I wish that their scope covered a greater area of the country, but when the hon. Gentleman says that there are great towns in which no person can go for legal advice, I think that he is putting the position a little bit too high. I am sure he will recognise that in our provincial cities, even though there are no centres of the kind to which he has referred, a great deal of voluntary assistance is given by the lawyers who reside in those places. One hears nothing about it, but from my own knowledge I can say that in proper cases both members of the Bar and solicitors are not reluctant to give assistance without charge.
I hope that such service will continue to be given, but I hope, too, that we shall not have to wait so very much longer before we implement the full recommendations of the Rushcliffe Committee, embodied, as they were, in the 1949 Act.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Twenty-two Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.