HC Deb 08 February 1956 vol 548 cc1689-93
Mr. Willis

I beg to move, in page 18, line 7, at the end to insert: The investigation of food thus suspected must be carried out as quickly as is reasonably practicable. We had a long discussion in Committee on this matter, and I myself moved an Amendment designed to limit to 48 hours the time to be taken by the medical officer of health in examining food. The learned Lord Advocate said he thought the position of the shopkeeper or the person owning the food was fairly well safeguarded by subsection (2), but he agreed that the matter ought to be looked at again because of the arguments which were then advanced.

In subsection (3) of this Clause certain provisions are made for compensation in the event of the deterioration of food and for other purposes, but we made the point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that dislocation was likely to be caused to the business of the person concerned while the examination was being undertaken. We thought there ought to be an obligation placed upon the medical officer of health of the local authority to carry out his examination as quickly as possible. The words contained in the Amendment were suggested during the Committee stage, and are words which the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself said were worth looking at when the suggestion was made. I therefore commend the Amendment to his attention.

Mr. Ross

I beg to second the Amendment.

We had quite a long discussion on this in Committee, but I think that the fact that the learned Lord Advocate himself, at the end of that discussion, felt that it was necessary to have another look at the matter itself proves that some explanation is necessary from the Government as to what happened in their further consideration and why they did not find it possible or necessary to add any words.

I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman recollects the point at issue, and will remember that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) took some part in the discussion. The point at issue is this. First, the food is suspected of being contaminated and liable to cause food poisoning. The local authority gives instructions that the food is not to be sold or used for human consumption and is not to be removed, or that it may be removed to a specified place. The presumption is that if it is not moved then, obviously, all the other food in that place comes into the same category and is liable to become contaminated. This is a point which I do not think is covered by the existing provisions of the compensation subsection, and I would ask the Lord Advocate to have another look at it in the future progress of this Bill in another place.

4.15 p.m.

Captain Duncan

This is the last stage.

Mr. Ross

Oh, this is the last stage of the Bill. We have had so many versions of this Bill. This is Mark III—the last one—although this version has proceeded a little further than the rest.

This is a point worth considering. The position is that if the food is not removed, other food will be affected and any other food brought in will also be affected. The longer we delay the examination of the food which was the original cause of the investigation being made, the greater the damage is likely to be to the public. I think that this was a matter which concerned the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who said, for rather paradoxical reasons, that we did not need to specify any period or stipulate that it was urgent. To my mind, if the food is contaminated, the sooner we make an investigation and have it destroyed, the better it will be from the point of view of the public and from that of the trader or manufacturer or customer.

It is desirable that the matter should be cleared up as quickly as possible, and, from the point of view of the local authority—as the local authority is liable for limited compensation in this case—the quicker it is done the smaller the compensation and the better for the local authority. If the investigation is delayed, the greater the compensation is likely to be in respect of the food itself.

Further, if examination of the food is delayed and the food itself is not actually contaminated, it probably will be by the time the examination takes place, so that, from the points of view of the local authorities, the traders and the public, it is desirable that we should impress upon the authorities concerned the necessity for urgent and speedy investigation taking place in the cases of such food.

I sincerely hope that, even at this stage—there is still time for redemption; there always is—the Lord Advocate or the Joint Under-Secretary, or even the Secretary of State himself, since he has taken such a great interest in the Bill, will decide that this Amendment is desirable.

The Lord Advocate

I am obliged to the two hon. Gentlemen opposite for giving me this opportunity of reporting progress as it were in the consideration which we have given to this matter since the Committee stage. I agree with everything that has been said by the hon. Members for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) about speed, and if we thought that these words were necessary to make the investigation take place quickly, we would certainly accept them.

We do not, however, think that in this context, or in any context, it is necessary to put in the words— as quickly as is reasonably practicable. he wording, naturally, implies that, and, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock pointed out, the local authority is, after all, in charge of the medical officer and itself has a very real interest in seeing that the investigation is carried out at an early stage. Therefore, while agreeing with all that the two hon. Gentlemen said about speed and the desirability for speed, I cannot accept the Amendment, because I do not think it is necessary.

Mr. Willis

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us why he thinks there would be this drive on the part of local authorities to have the food examined? After all, the local authority has already stopped the food being sold and taken steps to prevent it from reaching the public. What incentive is there to have the analysis carried out quickly?

The Lord Advocate

With the permission of the House, I will reply to the hon. Gentleman. The incentive to the local authority to take action at all is that which I hope all local authorities have, to carry out the provisions of the law. The incentive to have the examination done quickly is in order to discover the condition of the food as early as possible and—as was said by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock—not to run the risk of having to pay an unnecessarily high figure of compensation if, at the end of the day, it turns out that there is nothing wrong with the food.

Miss Herbison

The Lord Advocate has given no adequate reasons for not accepting this Amendment. Both in the discussions during the Committee stage and today my hon. Friends have tried to show how important it is that this Amendment should be accepted. In quite a number of our Statutes we have these words. Surely they are necessary in the case of providing clean food for our people and ensuring that no other clean food will become contaminated by poisoned food. These words should be inserted to ensure that local authorities are made aware—in case there should be any chance of a local authority being laggard in the matter—of the desire of Parliament that all speed should be taken in dealing with this food. Cannot the Joint Under-Secretary accept the Amendment?

Mr. J. Nixon Browne

We gave this matter considerable thought and we did not feel it proper to write into the Bill something which was inherent in the operation of requiring clean food in Scotland. After all, the incentive is prevention.

Mr. Ross

In that case, why is it that in a later Clause, Clause 38, 48 hours are stipulated for another type of investigation?

Mr. Browne

That is for a different reason altogether, in order not to hold up food at the ports.

If we write into the Bill things which any good medical officer or local authority must do for the protection of the people, there are so many Statutes where similar words could be written in. There is also the point that if we write into the Bill that there must be expedition, it might be a case for a defence that there had been undue delay in examining the food. We have tried to meet the Opposition on practically every point and I can assure the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) that if we could have done it this time we would. I hope that with that explanation this Amendment may be withdrawn.

Amendment negatived.