MINISTRY OF FOOD (TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS)

HC Deb 26 October 1955 vol 545 cc323-44

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey (Sunderland, North)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Transfer of Functions (Food and Drugs) Order, 1955 (S.I., 1955, No. 959), dated 30th June, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th July, be annulled. After the squalid performance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer we now move on to discuss something of relatively less importance, and it may meet the convenience of the House if I say at once that we have no intention of dividing the House on this Prayer, for we are not opposed to what it sets out to do. However, we believe that the steps being taken are inadequate, and there are some matters upon which we think we are entitled to further and better explanation.

We did oppose, as the House will remember, the transfer of functions from the Minister of Food to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and one of the grounds upon which we opposed that transfer was that some of the functions being transferred were inappropriate to the Minister of Agriculture. It was during that debate that the Leader of the House, who, I am sorry to say, is not with us tonight, announced that it was the intention of the Government later by subsequent Order to transfer primary responsibility for what one might call the hygiene functions of the Minister of Health.

We are now discussing the Order of which the Leader of the House gave us notice. I said then that I did not know and the House did not know whether this was to be a clean transference of the Food Hygiene Division to the Ministry of Health or not. I still do not know, and the House does not know, and I do not think that either of the Ministers know. It appeared to me then and it appears now that there are to be two Food Hygiene Divisions. I think, perhaps I exaggerated a little when I said that this was to be no more than a making of the Minister of Health the office boy to send out directions to the local authorities. Perhaps that was an exaggeration, though on the face of it this Order only means that; but I said then and say again that this is neither a good administrative advantage nor an economy. The position under this Order is that apart from the administration of the welfare foods they are office boy functions that appear to be transferred to the Minister of Health.

There is the usual Explanatory Note to the Order, and its penultimate paragraph says: Apart from these particular changes, those are the changes to which I have referred— Article 2 (4) and the Second Schedule to the Order carry out a general re-allocation of the functions of 'the Minister' under the incorporated sections of the Public Health Act. 1936, corresponding with the distribution of substantive functions under the Food and Drugs Acts themselves. How far this operation consists of a transfer of functions, and how far a mere restatement of the law as it stands, depends upon the construction of the enactments and previous Orders in Council already referred to. We hope we can be told what this means, and what is the temporary position and whether it is a clean transference to the Minister of Health of this responsibility. Certainly, the Minister himself, when he spoke on the Supplementary Estimates, spoke of joint responsibility.

What I want to know, and feel that we are entitled to know, is what is to happen to the Food Hygiene Division of the Ministry of Food. It was a very effective Division. It did a lot of good work and had the opportunity to do a good deal more under the Food and Drugs (Amendment) Act, which was the clean food Bill.

I emphasise this point because the position today is far from satisfactory. We had an intolerable delay with the clean food Bill itself and then, just a year ago, the Minister announced that we could expect the regulations under the Act in the early months of this year. We still have not got those regulations. We are still waiting for them. I suppose that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that we can now expect them in the early months of next year. The conclusion to which we are driven is that the Government are very half-hearted in supporting the move to ensure cleaner food.

Let us, at any rate, try to have these two points clarified. Is the Food Hygiene Division to remain an entity, such as it was under the Ministry of Food, and is that Division being transferred to the Minister of Health or are we having a division of the Division and a joint responsibility between the two Ministers, meaning bad administration, overlapping and inefficiency? Quite apart from that, it is quite clear that in any case the food hygiene functions, affecting milk, meat and slaughterhouses, are remaining in the Ministry of Agriculture.

Why is this being done? I think that the House appreciates that there is wide concern throughout the country that the conditions in our slaughterhouses are absolutely deplorable. Nothing is being done about them. If the local authorities had the responsibility for the conditions in these slaughterhouses a good deal would have been heard about them by now.

Is this the reason why this function is not being transferred to the Ministry of Health? Is this a cover for the unsatisfactory conditions that followed the decontrol and the reopening of unsatisfactory premises? This is a disgrace and it will not do if this is to be covered by allowing the responsibility to rest in the producer Department. I hope that apart from receiving an explanation about the division of functions concerning food hygiene we shall have an explanation of the specific exception which is made and of the particular powers which quite clearly are not being transferred to the Minister of Health.

The other major function which is transferred is the administration of welfare foods. This is going over to the local authorities. I do not want to quarrel with that; it is a good function for the local authorities. I think that I am right in saying that Sheffield always carried out these functions very efficiently. It is the sort of work which, if it can be arranged, should be carried out by local authorities but, as the Minister of Health knows, and he has expressed concern about it, there has been a fall in the consumption of milk and orange juice. The Minister has said something which is disturbing and which, again, illustrates the attitude of the Government. As I understood him, the Minister of Health said, "We should be really concerned with what the children are having. If they are having proprietary foods instead of welfare foods, what does it matter?"

It matters a great deal, because it illustrates the attitude of the Government. I have feared for some time that there would be pressure to relax emphasising the importance of welfare foods because of the interests of the proprietary firms. I think that that has happened and that there is much less pressure and much less publicity from the Government than before, because the Government are tender towards proprietary firms. It would have been far better if the Government had still insisted on their primary responsibility and continued to do their utmost to increase the consumption of the welfare foods directly, but the Minister of Health was kind enough to say that he was inquiring into the position, particularly of dried milk and orange juice and that he hoped to give a fuller report later.

I hope that he is in that position tonight. If he is not, I hope that as Minister of Health he will stand up to the Government and say that this is primarily a responsibility of the Government and that they should not try to shuffle out of it and console themselves by saying that if there has been a fall in consumption of welfare foods, there will be an increase in the consumption of proprietary foods. We can be quite sure that overall there has been a fall in the consumption of these essential welfare foods. As I have indicated, in view of the amalgamation of the Ministries, which we opposed, we shall not challenge the transference of these functions to the Ministry of Health.

In fact, the case I have tried to emphasise so far is that we would prefer a much more clear and direct responsibility upon the Minister of Health and we would like local authorities to be in a position to keep him up to scratch. We do not want a blurring of responsibility. Apart from some functions being specifically transferred—and those are largely of an office boy character—there remains a joint responsibility. It will be difficult to attach specific responsibility to either Minister. There are certain functions which are exempted from the effect of the Order and whichever Minister is responsible for food hygiene generally ought to be responsible for those functions, too.

I hope that by raising these matters tonight—not because we are opposed to the Order, but to call attention to them—we will call the attention of local authorities to the subject, and that now that they have some responsibility for food hygiene they will exercise powerful pressure upon the Minister of Health who kindly sat throughout the debates on the Food and Drugs (Amendment) Act, 1954. He can rest assured that in his endeavours to get a greater personal responsibility for the administration of food hygiene he will have support from these benches.

Sir Leslie Plummer (Deptford)

I beg formally to second the Motion.

10.14 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Harmar Nicholls)

It was quite pleasant at the beginning of the term to find the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) in such a benign mood. It was a very delightful experience and I hope that it is an experience which we shall have time and time again during the winter months.

I thought that the hon. Member showed great consideration to both his Icon. Friends and my hon. Friends in making it quite clear that hon. Gentlemen opposite did not intend to divide upon this Order, but that his speech was more in the nature of a request for a further explanation. He rather confused the Order with the debate on the merger which took place last March, but that is understandable. We have had a Recess and the continuity of events has been rather delightfully disturbed by it.

I think it will be helpful if, at this early stage, I try to give an explanation of what is actually represented by this Order. Broadly speaking, it comes under two headings. First, to make certain legal changes which flow consequentially from the previous decision which brought about the merger, and secondly, to transfer to the Minister of Health the responsibility for welfare foods. The Government waited a considerable time before laying this Order because, very properly, they wished to ensure that there would be adequate opportunity for a debate such as we are now having. It may be remembered by hon. Members that the Prime Minister informed the House in May that he was deliberately delaying laying the Order in the last Parliament, because he wanted the full forty days to run in order to give hon. Members the chance they are taking tonight.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, like most Orders, this one runs true to form and looks very complicated. I think I can understand why hon. Members may think that the Explanatory Note itself needs a little bit of explaining. But there is nothing unusual about that. I find that in all these Orders the Explanatory Notes usually are just like that. I can also understand the hon. Gentleman being puzzled by what the Order appears to omit rather than by what it contains. I agree with him that there is no reference at all to the transfer of primary responsibility for the main food hygiene functions. It is not because it has been overlooked, it is because no formal transfer under the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Act, 1946, was needed to give effect to this decision.

The Order did not need to cover that ground at all. It was all satisfactorily covered from the legal point of view under existing food and drugs legislation by which the two Ministers are already jointly responsible for making almost all the regulations and Orders relating to the functions in question.

If, later, I refer to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as "my Department" it will not be from any sense of pomposity, but because it is a shorter way of describing it.

If I may put this matter in a non-technical way, the present Order, as regards the hygiene functions, is concerned largely with completing and tidying up arrangements as to responsibility. There are examples which could be given but which I think are well known to hon. Members.

Turning from the technicalities of the Order and the 1946 Act, and coming to more general terms, I think one can say that our arrangement of functions is fairly clear. The hon. Gentleman set out what were the new functions and those left with my Department, so I think that they are clear. The division of responsibility between the Minister of Health and my Department is that the Minister of Health continues, as he always has done because this is not a new point, to have primary responsibility for all medical advice over the whole range of functions that he is now taking on as well as those left with my Department.

In addition, my right hon. Friend now has primary responsibility for regulations under the Food and Drugs Act dealing with hygienic conditions on food premises and the handling and distribution of food except, as the hon. Gentleman said, for milk and meat. In most respects both of them stay with my Department. I say in most respects, because once meat is out of the slaughterhouse or the pipeline of importation it comes under the central authority of the Minister of Health. If meat is on the butcher's slab it is a matter for the Minister of Health acting through the local sanitary inspector. But apart from that, in most respects responsibility stays with my Department.

The Minister of Health also has primary responsibility for Orders extending the registration of food premises and regulations dealing with street and open-air food traders, and with vehicles which are used for the sale of food. Finally, in this section, he takes under his wing the Food Hygiene Advisory Council, which was set up under the recent Act to advise the two Ministers, for example, on food hygiene and certain other regulations proposed under the Act. On the other hand, my Department retains the primary responsibility for regulations dealing with the composition, labelling and advertising of food, and it also retains primary responsibility for the hygiene of milk produced, the distribution of milk and also of meat and meat products, mainly, as I have said, while they are in the slaughterhouse or in course of importation.

Having again set out the division of functions, I should like to make it clear that the division which I have just described relates only to the primary administrative responsibility for these functions. It says which Minister will speak in this House or will explain things to the country, but this division in no way creates a departure from what has gone on in the past. The two Departments will continue to work closely together, just as the Ministry of Health used to work with the Ministry of Food when the hon. Member for Sunderland, North was connected with it. There is no question of the Ministry acting as the postman as suggested by the hon. Gentleman in the derisory comments which he made, although in a friendly way. It is a partnership which has worked in the past and which will continue to work in the future.

In each case the Department which has what I call the primary responsibility will bring the other into full consultation, and the two Ministers will, as before, be joined in the regulations and orders made. This being so, and since we are merely carrying on what has happened in the past, I can understand the question which the hon. Gentleman did not ask, but rather implied—why make these changes at all? The short answer to that is that in disposing of the remaining functions of the Ministry of Food, we have, with the exceptions I have mentioned, taken the opportunity of placing with the Ministry of Health the responsibility for those functions predominantly concerned with public health.

I am saying that these functions are returning to their original homes, because, as is well known, it was from the Ministry of Health, in 1948, that the Ministry of Food took over its functions under the Food and Drugs Act. The strengthening in the 1954 Act of the law relating to food hygiene as a preventive measure of public health makes this a particularly suitable moment for the Minister of Health once again to take over the primary responsibility for these matters which was originally with his Department.

What are the considerations for my Department retaining primary responsibility in the functions that it keeps? While the public health and the hygiene factor is an outstandingly important one, there are other factors, too. In redistributing this responsibility, we have to take into account many practical considerations and it is after we had taken these practical considerations into account and have put them on the scale that we came to the decision which I have mentioned, that responsibility for the hygiene of milk and meat should, in most respects, remain with my Department.

My Department has been concerned since 1949 with the hygiene of milk on farms. It is also responsible for the questions of milk production and the improvement of quality of milk. The expert advisers that we need for work in both these fields—which is still going on—are also equipped to advise upon matters of hygiene and to draw upon the Minister of Health where necessary for medical advice. They already do all that, so that both tasks can be operated just as efficiently and more economically with the same personnel. They have to do one part of the job; they have the qualifications and the ability to do the other part, and it is a matter of economics and common sense that they should maintain full control over that field.

It would not be good administration to divide between two Departments a primary responsibility for different aspects of milk production when the Department which has to carry on part of the job is capable of doing it all. That also applies in the case of meat and meat products. Since my Department has responsibility for slaughterhouse policy—for siting, concentration and the avoidance of cruelty—I do not think that it would be good administration to place elsewhere the responsibility for the policy relating to the inspection of meat at the slaughterhouse. The same is true of the inspection of meat products in the course of importation. Our people have to be responsible for other aspects of this question and they are capable of carrying through the whole process.

The same thing applies to food labelling and the composition of food. I know that quite a number of hon. Members opposite think that this matter should be made the responsibility of the Minister of Health. It should be remembered however, that whilst the safeguarding of public health is an outstandingly important consideration, it is not the only one involved. Our aim is also to maintain good commercial practice, and to avoid fraud, and this point has been raised by hon. Members on both sides whenever we have had debates upon the need for correct labelling and for seeing that the right ingredients are put into the food.

The commercial aspect has to be taken into account. Whether the object in view is to protect the consumer's health or his pocket, technical questions of real complexity arise in connection with the raw materials used, or the complicated techniques of food manufacture. Such questions make it essential that the administrative Department with the primary responsibility should be one which has close relations with food traders and manufacturers.

Mr. Willey

The hon. Member is on a very dangerous argument now. If he is right, what reason is there for any incentive at all? Why should not this have been left to the private trade before the war?

Mr. Nicholls

The hon. Member is overlooking the fact that this is a partnership. There is no question of the Minister of Health and his advisers not being concerned. They will have their share in considering all these problems. I do not think it is at all dangerous to remind the hon. Member that, while we place public health very high, we have also to protect business probity—and nobody knows that better than the hon. Member, because I have heard him expound with great eloquence upon the need to see that the public are not misled by the labels on the tins, and to ensure that the right quality product goes into them.

To do that we want not only the force of legislation but also the co-operation of the manufacturers and other people concerned with these products, working along with the various Departments. I am not suggesting that they could not have done just the same with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, but it so happens that because of the functions of the Ministry of Food in past years, and the functions which the hon. Member himself has carried out for so long, we have the contacts and the necessary understanding with the traders, and it is possible to come to the end that we all want, which is good quality together with hygienic packing. It is possible to do that without always having to use the blunt force of legislation.

Mr. Willey

I still think that the hon. Member is upon very dangerous ground. He will have heard his predecessor saying, time after time, "We are out of the meat business," "We are out of the banana business," and so on. Now, if I understand the hon. Gentleman aright, he is arguing, in a way that I have not yet fully understood, that it would interfere with business probity if his right hon. Friend at the Ministry of Health had any responsibility for our slaughterhouses.

Mr. Nicholls

No, no; I did not say that at all. The hon. Gentleman said we had boasted that we were out of trade in many respects. That is perfectly true, and good results have flowed from it, as we see from the good breakfast table we enjoy. In many fields we are still responsible for meat products and for the labelling and composition of various foods; we still have that responsibility, and I repeat that, while we are primarily responsible for this the Minister of Health is still responsible for all medical advice that flows from it. That is safeguarded, and I do not think it is treading on dangerous ground at all to be practical about this and to say that, however sordid it may sound, we must maintain good commercial practice.

It is the considered view of the Government that, while the Ministry of Health or other Departments may have been able to maintain the contact quite well, with the past experience we from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have had with these various firms, we are more likely to do it with greater ease and less trouble than other Departments. Because it is important, I reiterate that it is the Ministry of Health who will continue to be responsible for medical advice on these matters, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they will always be brought into full consultation. Indeed, it is not a question of bringing them in: they will be there and we shall have their continuous advice upon these points.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to local authorities, and asked whether the new division of responsibility between the two Departments will cause some confusion in the minds of local authorities charged with the enforcement of the Food and Drugs Acts. We have given a lot of thought to this possibility and have tried to overcome any risk there may be. We have circularised local authorities to try to reduce any risk to an absolute minimum. We sent them a circular, which I have no doubt is well known to the hon. Gentleman, on 5th July, and we do not think that this leaves any real risk of misunderstanding on this point, once the people concerned in the local authorities have got used to the new arrangement.

I believe that the line of demarcation will be quite clear, and local authorities will know that the general field of hygiene, including unsound food, is a matter for the Ministry of Health, except for those aspects which we at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have retained, and which can be very clearly identified. If I might say so, the hon. Gentleman himself identified them very clearly in his speech. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned welfare foods, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will have some points to make upon that.

I really do not think that this Order contains anything which can call for any real censure from hon. Gentlemen opposite—and, in fairness to the hon. Gentleman, he did not attempt to censure us in severe fashion. It is true that the line of demarcation of responsibility for various sections could have been drawn at another point; some functions that have gone to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health could have been retained in our Department. An honest endeavour has been made to set the line of demarcation at the most common sense point, where public health and commercial practices will be met with the greatest possible ease. I am delighted to think that, the hon. Gentleman having examined this Order, he has shown by his speech that he does not really think there is a great deal wrong with it.

10.35 p.m.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan (Perth and East Perthshire)

My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary did not, I think, see me rise, otherwise he could have answered my question at the same time as the others. I understand that this Order applies only to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but Article 2 (3) says: The functions of the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, acting jointly … Who is the Secretary of State? I assume that it must be the Secretary of State for Scotland— under the enactments described in paragraph I of the Second Schedule to the Food and Drugs Amendment Act, 1954 (which provides for the application of those enactments to Northern Ireland) are hereby transferred to the Secretary of State … presumably the Secretary of State for Scotland— the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister of Health acting jointly. The Parliamentary Secretary has talked about the line of demarcation being carefully drawn to get the best possible results, but how is this line of demarcation drawn between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the person responsible in Northern Ireland? If the functions are to be transferred to the Minister of Health it does not seem to me that the Secretary of State for Scotland ought to come into it at all. Perhaps the Minister will say how far the Secretary of State for Scotland is now, under the arrangements proposed in this Order, responsible for the application of the enactments to Northern Ireland. Under Article 2 (3) he seems still to be responsible, and that does not seem to be common sense.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East)

I want to say a word or two about this Order from the health aspect. In spite of what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture which is my short title for the Ministry which he adorns—has said, it is clear that commercial interests seems to have overwhelmed health interests in the division of the functions that has taken place.

I am very greatly surprised that the Minister of Health—to whom I am very grateful for coming here this evening to deal with some of these points—has allowed this Order to be made in its present form. Sometimes I wonder whether some of the rumours we have seen in the Press about his translation to other offices of the Crown may not, in fact, be correct and his interest in the Ministry of Health thereby be waning.

I do not know that I can feel so cheerful about this Order as, perhaps, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) appeared to be. From the evidence and the representations one has had, it seems that this Order will, on the whole, make the administration of a very important health field much more difficult rather than easier.

Many of the points referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary were rather misleading. I do not suggest for one moment that he meant to mislead the House but, in effect, I thought many of his comments misleading. For example, he referred to the fact that we are merely carrying on with existing practice, but that is not the case. From every public point of view the Ministry of Food has gone out of existence; it has been wound up—gobbled up by the Ministry of Agriculture, the producer Ministry.

It is not at all the case that we have still the Ministry of Food as a separate Ministry that accepted certain responsibilities for the quality of food supplies and their quantity. We have the producer Department—the Ministry of Agriculture—now being put in a position of responsibilty for quite important matters of hygiene and health. I should have thought that that was the view, too, of the Minister of Health. I can imagine various arguments and discussions going on between Ministers about the division of functions. It is obviously a difficult matter to settle, but I am amazed that the decision should have been arrived at to reach this unhappy compromise.

Mr. Nicholls

It is dangerous to let pass the hon. Member's suggestion about the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food being only a producer Department. He and the record ought to be reminded of what my right hon. Friend the Minister said on 28th March: I do not regard the Ministry of Agriculture as solely a producers' Department. The Ministry of Agriculture, as I have said, has been and always is very much concerned with the interests of the consumers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1955; Vol. 539, c. 154.] There is no question whatever of one interest being gobbled up by the other, and I am certain that on reflection the hon. Member will agree that it would serve no useful purpose if that were allowed to go out from this House unchallenged.

Mr. Blenkinsop

We can just say that we have very different views on the matter. But the view, not merely of an individual Member of the Opposition in this House, but of local authorities and the very responsible local authority associations and many of the bodies immediately concerned with carrying out the work in the areas up and down the country, is certainly that responsibility has been taken by a producer Department, and they are protesting about it.

I have expressions of view from very many bodies—for example, the local authority associations, the urban district councils, the municipal authorities and medical officers of health. Many of them quite clearly take a very strong view about this. Sanitary inspectors and their association, a very responsible body of people who are doing this work day by day, carrying out an important function, feel very strongly and have made representations, as I know all of them have, to the respective Ministers to try to secure a different division of function than that provided for in the Order.

The view of all of them is that the Ministry of Agriculture, to use the abbreviated title, is in effect the producer Department. They feel, and I feel, that it is wrong in principle that that producer Department should be responsible still for a great number of functions that are essentially hygiene and public health functions. It is a great difficulty in administration for sanitary inspectors and others that they do not have the freedom of operation that they had in the earlier days.

The Parliamentary Secretary seemed to be giving the impression that what we are doing is to revert to the position before the Ministry of Food was created; but, of course, that is not so. Some of the functions have gone back to the Minister of Health but others are retained in the hands of the Ministry of Agriculture. Some of the hon. Gentleman's comments were quite amazing. He referred to the Order as tidying up responsibilities. Really! Look at some of the anomalies that the Order is establishing.

The matter is raised with me by the Sanitary Inspectors' Association. They have an interest in all this. We rely upon them, very often far more than we recognise, for the whole state of public health. They point out that there are some very curious anomalies. Indeed, I understand that so far as food generally is concerned, the inspection for general hygiene and health purposes is the responsibility of the Ministry of Health at unloading or shipments coming in from abroad and any further stages in food as a whole, except meat.

In the case of meat in the process of unloading, that is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Health: it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, and one can envisage all sorts of hypothetical cases of problems arising about, for example, tins of pork and beans; that is, problems about whose responsibility it is to examine the condition of tins of pork and beans when that food is being unloaded; whether one is to open each tin and have one bit looked at from the point of view of the Ministry of Health, and the other bit from the point of view of the Ministry of Agriculture.

There are very real and practical matters to be solved on this subject, and although I do not suggest that anything so stupid as the example I have just given would arise, the Parliamentary Secretary has come here and said that this "tidies up the position." It does nothing of the sort. It creates new anomalies which are felt very much indeed by the people actually doing the job; they say that the decision which has been taken is quite wrong. They consistently felt—and their views ought to be heard—that the responsibility of the sanitary inspector and the Ministry of Health for slaughterhouse hygiene ought to be clear. It ought to be, in their view, clear as regards meat production as a whole. The hygiene side should be the responsibility of the sanitary inspector and the Ministry of Health.

I should like the Minister of Health to reply on this point because the anxiety of sanitary inspectors is that, just as the responsibility for hygiene in the production of meat has been taken from the hands of local authorities, they are afraid that the responsibility for slaughterhouse hygiene will be taken from local authority hands entirely. They have a strong fear that there is being built up a demand for the pushing out of the Ministry of Health and the sanitary inspector from this vital field and that the Ministry of Agriculture will gobble up some more functions as the producer Ministry; and whatever has been said, I repeat "producer Ministry." That would be to the great detriment of the proper functioning of our health inspection in the country as a whole.

It is sometimes said that we have too few sanitary inspectors; that we are short of them even for existing functions, and that that is all the more serious because of many new responsibilities put on their shoulders. I would ask whether this shortage has had anything to do with the action of the Ministry of Health in this matter; in other words, that we have to accept this shortage and the fact that a great deal of the work which the sanitary inspector ought to do is to be handed to somebody else. I hope that this decision has not been accepted for that reason. It is our responsibility, on all sides, to help recruit more sanitary inspectors in order to maintain a high standard of service.

I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman is not diminishing in importance in any way the work of the sanitary inspectors at this, in my view, rather critical time. I have in my hands the severe criticisms of the Association of Municipal Corporations and the organisations of district councils, medical officers of health and sanitary inspectors, all of whom take exactly the same view, that it is, on grounds of principle, wrong that functions should be concentrated as they are now being concentrated in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture. Secondly, they take the view that the actual division being applied by this Order will lead to greater difficulty in the administration of their work.

I am very glad indeed that the Minister of Health is here. I am grateful to him for sparing the time to come here for a debate on an Order of this sort. I think it is right that he should, because this is a matter which, although many people may not attribute very much importance to it, is of very real concern to public health and the maintenance of proper standards.

I refer to the point my hon. Friend made about the transfer of welfare foods. If the right hon. Gentleman can give any further information about the developments, about the inquiries in the country as a whole, as to the effect of the changeover respecting the welfare foods, we should be most interested. I hope, above all, that he is able to say he is himself fully satisfied that from the point of view of health this scheme is reasonable and proper, will not result in any weakening or lowering of health standards, which is the fear of many people, and that, in his view, it is a practical scheme that can be operated, and that the duties of those for whom he is, after all, responsible, sanitary inspectors and others, can be carried out in an efficient and reasonable way, without an unreasonable burden being placed upon them.

10.53 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod)

Perhaps I may take a few minutes to reply to the questions on health matters. I do not know whether I can satisfy Newcastle and Sunderland, but I think I can at least send Perth home happy, because the reference, to which my hon. and Gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) referred, to the Secretary of State in Article 2 (3) is not a reference to the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is the Home Secretary, who has responsibilities in regard to the importation of food into Northern Ireland.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

Ought not that to appear in the Order?

Mr. Macleod

"Secretary of State" is an all-embracing term which, I believe, is defined in the Interpretation Act, 1889, which I have not handy at the present. I think that that is so, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend it is not the Secretary of State for Scotland.

The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) is always rather unhappy in a non-controversial debate. He did his best to get some controversy into it and into proprietary milk and orange juice by some hubble-bubble about the Government being anxious to push the sale of proprietary milk.

I will tell the House, for I think they should be on the record, some of the results of the inquiries we have made into the distribution of the welfare foods. Although one cannot give figures for percentage intake—I think "uptake" is the right word—for national dried milk, because that is an alternative to liquid milk, every year since 1948 the figures for cod liver oil and vitamin tablets have been steadily declining. There was a jump in the graph, but there has been a steady decline since 1948 and not since 1954. Until October, 1954, different coupons were used for liquid milk and for national dried milk.

As from November, 1954, the coupons became interchangeable. That is an obvious convenience to mothers. It is quite clear from our reports from the local authorities that what is happening to a large extent is that the mother continues to use her coupons for cheap liquid milk consumed by the family, and the baby is often fed on a proprietary brand of dried milk. I believe that strictly that would be an offence against the Order, because someone other than the beneficiary is consuming the cheap milk, but that, of course, would be a pure technicality.

The point that I am making is that there is a good deal of evidence, especially from Scotland where monthly figures are available, to show there has been a substantial drop in dried milk consumption, not from July, 1954, but from November, 1954. I think, therefore, that that is clearly related not to the change from the Ministry of Food to the local authorities but to the change in the method that is being used in connection with the coupons. The only thing that I would say about national dried milk is that there may be some suggestions—and there is some evidence of this in our reports from local authorities—that some mothers believe that because a tin of milk is sold for 10½d. it cannot be as good as a brand sold for 3s. 6d., 4s. or 5s. It is no part of my business to draw comparisons between one form of milk and another, but it should be stated that the national dried milk is a first-rate product and no mother need have any fears about using it on that account.

There is also some doubt whether the centres that are now provided by local authorities are, in all cases, quite as convenient as they were before. I have not gone into the detailed figures, but if hon. Members would like to have them and would like to table a Question I can give them. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North mentioned Sheffield. There, the local health authorities have distributed all welfare foods for a considerable time. The arrangements there have continued entirely unaltered by this new scheme and the decline in Sheffield in the amount distributed has been the same as elsewhere. I think that that shows that there is nothing seriously wrong.

The other point which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North raised was about the future of the Food Hygiene Division of the Ministry. The answer is that that part of the Division which deals with general hygiene, not milk, meat and slaughterhouses, and so on, has been transferred to my own Foods Division.

On the main question which the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) raised, I do not want to go much beyond what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said. I do not pretend that there is any way by which we can reach a precise answer on the question of division of functions. All I can say is that I looked very carefully at the question which the hon. Member raised and I was very glad to hear him put forward the views of the sanitary inspectors on this matter.

I looked, of course, at the question whether more functions than are provided for in this Order ought to come to my Ministry. I looked at it, as I suppose any Minister would, with a bias towards their coming under my control. That, no doubt, is a very natural attitude for any Minister to have, but I was quite satisfied after very long and detailed discussions, mainly with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food but also with other Ministers, that the suggestions which we have enshrined in this Order are, on the whole, the best ones. I say quite specifically that we did not reach that conclusion in any way because of the difficulties that there may be, which we hope are temporary, with regard to a shortage of sanitary inspectors but purely and simply on the merits of the case.

Finally, I am glad to take the opportunity of underlining, as the hon. Member did well, the infinite importance of food hygiene and food standards and the work of the sanitary inspectors for which, perhaps, we are not sufficiently grateful. Those are the main points which I think have emerged in the discussion we have had. The Government believe that the solution which they have put before the House, while it is not one which can be proved to be right, will, in the run of events, be shown to be right. I believe the peoples' well-being and interests are fully safeguarded.

Mr. Blenkinsop

May I ask the Minister whether he will keep in close touch with this whole question of the division of functions and how it works out on the spot, which is what matters most, and be prepared to receive representations from bodies representing sanitary inspectors and others who may have points to raise?

Mr. Macleod

I believe that we should give these methods a run. If, in the light of experience, bodies of the importance of the sanitary inspectors would like to make representations to me, I should be very glad to receive them.

Mr. Willey

The melancholy demeanour of the right hon. Gentleman betrays the fact that he is not altogether satisfied, and neither are we. But because a thing which ought to be done is done badly, that is no reason for resisting it. For that reason, and because this is an improvement on the previous position, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.