MILK (SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS)

HC Deb 31 March 1965 vol 709 cc1787-806

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart (Edinburgh, West)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Milk (Special Designations) (Scotland) Order, 1965 (S.I., 1965, No. 253), dated 18th February, 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th February, be annulled. It would not surprise me if, after so concentrated a day on agriculture, by the end of this Prayer you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, wondered whether any agricultural sustenance was adequate or whether something else produced in Scotland might be needed.

It is not altogether unfitting to end a day of such agricultural activity—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King)

Order. I should be grateful if hon. Members will listen to the hon. Gentleman addressing the House.

Mr. Stodart

As I was saying, it is not unfitting to discuss one of the best agricultural products for which Scotland is responsible. I give a welcome, if a slightly surprising one, to the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State, whom I am glad to see. She is perhaps the symbol of the reorganisation of the Scottish Office since those splendid days before October 1964, when the same Minister looked after both agriculture and health. Since then there has been a division of responsibility. Although there will be several points which my hon. Friends and I will wish to raise on what I might describe as the production side of this Order, and thus on agricultural matters, I want to say how very important it is to recognise that milk forms one of the meeting points between agriculture and health. I am sure the hon. Lady will agree with me that in order that we may enjoy good health we must be able to get good food.

I should like to make it clear that I very much welcome in principle a Measure designed to improve the quality of one of our staple foods in which Scotland has always excelled. In any case, as the hon. Lady is well aware, I cannot and would not wish to conceal my own interest in proposals which have taken quite a long time to reach their present stage. I have no reservations, therefore, about the desirability of such details in this Order as milk having to be better cooled on the farm than it has been hitherto, nor about the new temperature control until bottles of milk leave the retailer. Quite obviously, too, it is thoroughly good to go after improved bacterial standards in both the new grades which are introduced by this Order, and to introduce a compositional standard in the case of premium milk.

Having mentioned the premium grade, I should like to say that I think it is a most sensible relaxation of the Regulations which deal with bottling on the farm of production. I shall have a little more to say about that in a moment and also about the completely new provision which has been introduced for the mixing of milk from the morning and evening milkings. Hitherto, of course, that has not been allowed.

I believe that certain consequences may flow from these novelties and amendments, consequences both detailed and general, and that is why I should like to draw the Minister's attention to one or two of them. First, there is the question of the new names, and I must confess that this has exercised me a great deal. I am quite sure that it has not been an easy job to pick the right names. I think the new premium grade and the standard grade were the result of fairly exhaustive consultation with all the interested parties, including the representatives of the consumers.

However, there is one thing which worries me, and it is the fear that what is going to be called standard milk will be suspected by the general public as being of lower quality than the well-known T.T. milk. I am certain that the hon. Lady will agree when I say that it is very important that the consumption of milk among all sections and ages of the community should not drop or be put in any peril of dropping. Therefore, the first question I wish to ask is: what is going to be done to inform the general public that, far from standard milk being inferior to T.T. milk, it will be better?

I was looking at the milk consumption figures for this country and certain European countries. We are not by any means at the top of the league, neither are we at the bottom. According to the United Nations statistics, we in this country drink, per head per annum, 148 milligrammes of milk. For the benefit of hon. Members, to show how benevolent I am, I have done the conversion, and it is the equivalent of 33 gallons a year, 264 pints or, on average ¾ pint per head of the population per day. That is something to be reasonably pleased about.

It is interesting to look at the pattern of milk consumption in other countries. In certain countries—I pick out Ireland, Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg—milk consumption is increasing steadily every year, and in certain other countries, Sweden, Switzerland and Holland, the latter of which is a very progressive milk-producing country, the consumption is going steadily down, as it has been doing remorselessly for the last ten years. We in this country have the slightly unusual pattern of a fairly steady level of consumption. I am quite certain that the Under-Secretary will want to keep it this way, or, if possible, to start an upward turn. I hope, however, that she will be able to say something about the propaganda that will be issued when the new grades come on to the market.

Paragraph 6 of Schedule 1, on page 11 of the Order, states that records are to be retained concerning the sale or production of milk for 12 months from the date of production or of any transaction to which the records relate. Latterly, we have had news of a new variety or process which will enable milk to be kept for an almost unlimited period. Presumably, the milk would be stored in a wholesaler's depot. I should have thought that if certain milk could be kept for several years the records that were required to be kept would be fairly formidable.

Paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 of the Order mentions—it does no more—the subject of inoculation against brucellosis. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) will have an opportunity of speaking on the Order. I content myself with remarking that, having got the Scottish dairy industry clear of tuberculosis, I hope that the Department of Agriculture, than which there is no more progressive organisation in Government, will as soon as possible turn its attention to the complete eradication of brucellosis in Scotland.

Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 contains regulations concerning the mixing of morning and evening milk and the breaking of new ground by allowing milk to be designated "premium" even if it is not bottled, as certified milk has to be today, on the farm where it is produced. This will clearly be a help and an economy to the farmer who may have two herds of cows on two different farms, who at present, if he wanted to sell certified milk, must have a bottling unit on each farm. The fact that he will be able to bring his milk by bulk tanker from farm A to farm B and do all the bottling there is a wide relaxation of the existing regulations. What I find a little surprising, and contradictory is paragraph 5(2), which says that after one has brought milk from farm A to the bottling plant at farm B, where one can bottle it and describe it as "premium", one may not describe farm A's milk as farm bottled. One may describe farm B milk as farm bottled because it is bottled on the farm on which it is being produced. Would the hon. Lady say what tortuous thought has gone into this and why milk on every farm which is obviously of such purity and proper standard of health as to be described as "premium" grade is not good enough to be called "farm bottled"?

I should like to ask the hon. Lady a question on paragraph 8 of the same Schedule. No one would deny that to count the number of bacteria in milk is the most reliable method not only of finding out how many there are in it but whether the milk is of a high enough standard, but are there not simpler methods which are every bit as reliable? I find it hard to believe that in these days of scientific advancement one has literally still to count the bacteria. Could the hon. Lady tell me something about the Resazurin test, which I am certain is well known to the hon. Gentleman, judging by the intelligent look on his face, which is a test done with dye? I think I am right in saying that it is used by the Scottish Milk Marketing Board. I should have thought that if this is good enough for the Scottish Board it might well be good enough for us. I absolutely agree that it is essential to maintain a very high reputation for purity, which is one of the tremendous assets not only to farmers but to consumers in Scotland, but I hope the hon. Lady can assure us that if simpler methods do come along they will be used.

There are only two other points I want to put to the hon. Lady. I think there is a slight confusion on the question of dates. As I understand it, the period at which the selling of certified and T.T. milk must end is 31st December this year and premium milk starts on 1st January next. There is slight confusion about when standard milk may come on to the market. At first sight it looks as if there is an extraordinary hiatus, because according to paragraph (2) of the Explanatory Note—and, of course, that gives the previous references—"standard" is to be the designation from 1st September, 1966. Therefore, if T.T. packs up in December, 1965, what happens in the interim? It may be that it is standard from that date at the same coolness as T.T. and then a different temperature control comes in in September. Perhaps if I am right in my suspicion of this the hon. Lady could confirm that.

Lastly, and I think perhaps most important of all, these standards of purity are not going to be raised for nothing. I am glad to see the look of intelligent agreement on the face of the Minister of State.

The Minister of State Scottish Office (Mr. George Willis)

I was thinking that the hon. Gentleman seemed to be doing very well.

Mr. Stodart

It seemed to me that he was recalling nostalgic memories of what used to happen on this side of the House in the last Parliament.

These new standards are not going to be attained at no cost. I suspect that new and more efficient cooling equipment may be needed to bring the coolness of milk down by an extra five degrees, and certainly the operating costs will be higher. What is going to happen? What have the Government in mind about the price that is to be paid for these new standards of milk? Can the hon. Lady inform us on this matter? What is likely to be the differential between the two, premium and standard? Is it going to be the same as the present differential between T.T. and certified?

I should have thought that there was a pretty good case for an increase in the differential, particularly after what we have been listening to today, and because of the Government's abject failure to defend the milk prices. I should have thought that they could not but announce that there was to be an increase in the price once this Order came into operation.

Having said that, may I say that I welcome the principle of this Order. I hope that the hon. Lady will reply to some of the points that I have raised.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. William Baxter (West Stirlingshire)

I hesitate to intervene in this debate, but I was most anxious to take part in the previous debate, and if I had been called to do so I would probably have drawn attention to this Order which has a terrific bearing on the subject under review not so long ago.

It is all very well suggesting that producers of milk should get an extra 1d., 2d., or 3d. a gallon, but that would apply to both the large and the small producer, just as this Order does. One has to bear in mind the fact that the small producer—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. This sounds suspiciously like a continuation of the previous debate. The hon. Member must relate his remarks to the grading of milk, which is dealt with in this Order.

Mr. Baxter

The cost of putting this Order into operation by the small producer will be prohibitive. Surely, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am entitled to say that.

I have had some practical experience, as a convener, of a health committee which for some time ran clean milk competitions. We found that it was very difficult to comply with the Orders then in existence. Orders such as this are difficult to put into operation, especially in a small farm. In fact, they are even difficult to understand, and I make bold to say that I am unable fully to understand this Order. Will my hon. Friend tell me what this means? Will she turn to page 4 Part II—Licences to Use Special Designations". Paragraph 3(2) reads: Subject to the provisions of this Order a local authority shall on application being made to them in that behalf grant a licence to the applicant authorising him to use the special designation specified in the application; and such a licence shall be in the appropriate form specified in Schedule 7 to this Order or in a form substantially to the like effect. I will give way to my hon. Friend if she will give me an explanation of what that paragraph means.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Judith Hart)

I often share my hon. Friend's views about the difficulty of understanding incomprehensible legislation and Orders, but on this occasion the only way in which I could explain would be by reading out those words, because I find them quite clear.

Mr. Baxter

Can my hon. Friend explain what is meant by: shall on application being made to them in that behalf grant a licence to the applicant… What does that mean?

Mrs. Hart

It means that when somebody applies to the local authority to use one of the designations in paragraph 3(1), the local authority shall grant a licence to the applicant provided that the application has been made in the special form which is specified. In that case he should have no difficulty in getting a licence from the local authority to use one of these designations.

Mr. Baxter

That seems very simple. If that is what it means, why does it not say so? It says nothing of the sort.

In paragraph 2 we read: The Interpretation Act 1889 applies for the interpretation of this Order as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of Parliament. Has the small farmer, the milk producer, the man who is retailing a few gallons of milk every morning, to go to this 1889 Act for an interpretation? It seems to me rather ludicrous and fantastic. I invite my hon. Friend's attention to paragraph 11 on page 16: Where the holder of the licence takes milk from a bulk container and puts it into another bulk container he shall put it into the other container… My goodness! Where else would he put it if he were not to put it in the container? It goes on: which shall then be closed as soon as possible after the opening of the first-mentioned container. I ask my hon. Friend—was this in our manifesto.

Mrs. Hart

We are responsible only for one or two changes in the Order which has been operating, and under which he and his hon. Friends have been operating, quite happily for some years. We are considering the changes in the Order.

Mr. Baxter

I remind my hon. Friend that phraseology is a very important factor and that to be able to understand the Order is very desirable. It is not sufficient to say that we inherited the Order from a previous Administration and have no responsibility for the phraseology which we are presenting to the House. We have 100 per cent. responsibility for the Order being placed before the House. Too much of this is blamed on someone else. We must face up to our responsibilities. It is fundamentally wrong and a contradiction of the better beliefs and qualities of the Labour Party to use phraseology which it is impossible to interpret in a reasonable and sensible way.

Orders and Regulations should not be so difficult to interpret that one need consult a lawyer. I believe that even local authorities will have difficulty in giving a true and sensible interpretation of this Order. It is not for us on this side of the House to enable lawyers and Q.C.s to make fat fees from this sort of thing, not that I am against them receiving fees. We should not make our legislation so difficult to understand by the poor, honest, hard working farmer.

If we do not realise this we will get into difficulties. We should be having 100 per cent. regard for the hard working, small producers and they must be able to understand these things. If we do not have 100 per cent. regard for them we may run into the difficulties that are being faced by Russia about its large collective farms. That country is having to go back to the small farmer to help it get out of its production difficulties. Let us learn from experience, from wherever it comes and irrespective of ideologies.

Our legislation must be capable of interpretation by the ordinary man, for it is he who produces the wherewithall which enables us to lounge back in our nice seats here. He also pays our salaries. It behoves my hon. Friends to simplify the law so that it can be understood by those who operate and act under our Regulations. If I were in the seat of the mighty I would take the Order back and give its wording further consideration.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. George Younger (Ayr)

I do not intend to delay the House for long. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) in welcoming the Order. I hope and believe that it will be a great encouragement towards improving quality milk production and I am certain that it will be welcomed by producers and distributors throughout the country. I hope that the Under-Secretary will find my remarks helpful.

My hon. Friend raised the question of the names of the two new grades. I appreciate how difficult it is to select names for any product and I am sure that qualities of milk are no exception. However, I reinforce what my hon. Friend said about the use of the word "standard". Although a perfectly respectable word, I suggest that "standard" has an implication of mediocrity. I am sure that the last thing any of us wish to imply in the standard of milk being produced is mediocrity, but it is a negative sort of word.

This is not merely a matter of academic interest, because we must remember that milk is a product which is competing strongly with many similar products that we drink. It is competing in a vigorous market and is subject to heavy advertising, as are the products which compete with it. Any expert in advertising or marketing will say that it is important that the name of a product should be absolutely right. I suggest that the ideal name here is the one we already have, which is "certified".

Why was it not thought possible to use the description "certified" for what is now to be called the "standard" grade under this Order? It may be very difficult to have second thoughts at this stage, but I hope that the hon. Lady will think about this suggestion seriously. Once the present "certified" grade has ceased to be used, might it not be a good idea to use its name for the standard grade? I would emphasise that the advertising and marketing of milk is extremely important, and if the name is right it will be that much easier.

While on advertising I would mention, incidentally, my hope that proper consideration will be given to the advertising of these new grades. They will not make the impact they deserve if they are merely advertised under the block description of "milk". I think that producers and distributors would welcome the advertising of these grades under their new names, because at present many of them feel that they pay a levy for advertising which merely advertises the product as a whole while those producing good quality milk very often have to put their own money into advertising it.

Paragraph 12(3) of Schedule 2 says that the container "may" carry the date of production. It is quite right that where the producer is also the distributor this provision should be permissive, and not imperative, but where the producer sells his product to probably a very large distributor who may hold very large stocks all over the country, is it not very important that the day of production should be marked on the container? In that case, is it enough that this provision should be permissive? Problems of stock control of such items are very difficult, and control is very apt to slip into slack ways and disuse. I should have thought that, particularly where large distributors buy their supplies from another source, there was a good case for making it obligatory to have the day of production marked on the container.

The sampling procedure mentioned in the Order seems to be quite all right, with one possible exception. Would it not be right for provision to be made that the licensee most be given the chance to be present when a sample is taken from a bulk tank? I accept that when a sample is taken from a milk bottle on a van, it is neither possible nor really necessary for the licensee, who may suffer if the sample is not up to standard, to be present, because the container in which the sample is placed is sealed. The milk in a bulk tank has been stirred up, the sample taken from below the surface, and so on, as laid down in the Order, the licensee, who may suffer if the sample is said to be below standard, should have the right to be present. That happens almost invariably at the moment, but it would be a safeguard to stipulate that it must be done.

My next point concerns the tribunal. Is it not very important to include in the tribunal a representative of the producers? As the Order stands, the tribunal comprises a chairman and two members, one of whom is to represent the distributors. But it does not have a representative of the producers. I think it important that it should, because if a licensee is threatened with losing his licence it is very likely that the reason why his licence is called in question may, rightly or wrongly, be alleged to be the responsibility, or partly the responsibility, of the producer of the milk. It would be a safeguard to have a representative of producers on the tribunal.

It might be argued that this would make the membership wrong, the number then being four instead of three. If that is a major disadvantage, would it not be possible to alter the terms slightly to provide that there should be one representative who is a producer and distributor? Both interests would then be well covered in the tribunal.

I hope that the Order will be generally welcomed by everyone in the House and also in the trade. All of us should support the aim to have high standards, but the equipment necessary to comply with the Order will be greater in quantity and more expensive to install and maintain than that now possessed by many producers. Dairy farming is a high-cost operation both in men and machinery, and if the scheme is to be successful the Government will have to show much more genuine concern about the poor return and low income which dairy farmers will experience under the present Price Review.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith (North Angus)

I have first to declare my interest as a producer-retailer and as a member of the producer-retailer association. I should like to pay tribute to the work done by the associations in Scotland in the preparation which has gone into the presentation of this Order. The original work on the Order goes back five or six years and I pay tribute, in particular, to the work of Mr. John Stevenson, who was chairman of the association and who, I know, has done a tremendous amount of work personally in consultation with the Department in preparing the Order. I hope that the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to join me in this tribute.

I welcome the changes, from two points of view. First, from the point of view of public health, it is clearly desirable that high standards should be maintained; secondly, from the point of view of the producer, these provisions bring standards much more into line with modern methods of production. The Order recognises the demand in Scotland as elsewhere for fresh milk of high quality.

On the last page of the explanatory part of the Order fresh milk is referred to as "raw milk". This is a particularly unfortunate term, because it puts into the mind of the consumer that there is something wrong with its being raw and that milk should be treated. As one who has always drunk "raw", or fresh, milk I think that there is no substitute for it. In areas where fresh milk is available consumers show a preference for it. Rather than use the term "raw milk" it would be preferable to use terms such as "fresh" or "untreated".

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) referred to health standards of dairy cows. It is unfortunate that there has not been included in the Order a provision that herds qualifying for designation as producing this standard of milk should be free from brucellosis. There is a genuine concern in the minds of local health authorities and the general public about this risk of brucellosis, particularly of its being transferred to human beings as undulant fever. The Secretary of State for Scotland, in reply to a Question of mine, said recently that there is not a high incidence of this in Scotland, but the fact that there is any incidence at all when it is something which can be avoided in this modern age is something about which we should be disappointed. If the Secretary of State is not ready at this stage to embark on a policy of eradication it might have been provided in the Order that herds should be vaccinated with S.19 vaccine. The vaccination scheme provided by the Department of Agriculture is optional and is not obligatory on producers of this grade of milk.

Another desirable step for those producing this grade of milk would be provision for regular clinical examinations of herds by veterinary surgeons. We have an examination once a year in connection with the tuberculin test; but rather more regular supervision of herds would be a good thing. Standards of health among herds producing this grade of milk are high because the standard of management is usually high, but, all the same, it would put at rest a lot of the doubts in people's minds if they knew that regular veterinary examinations were taking place.

I turn now to some of the detailed provisions in the Order. I welcome the provision for central bottling. I think that this may answer the question raised by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter), who, unfortunately, is no longer in his place. Producer-retailers have been pressing for the change for some time. Small producers may have had to install special bottling plant in their own premises, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, on a small scale, it may not be economic. The new provision in the Order is a great step forward. Milk may now be bottled centrally and still qualify for the special designation.

Why has it been thought necessary to retain the coliform test when there is a very low bacterial count? It is recognised among dairy farmers and, I think, among certain authorities in public health, the universities and agricultural colleges that, as the bacterial count comes down, there is a risk of the coliform bacteria increasing although, of course, there is no increase in the overall bacterial count. It is now known that the coliform bacteria are not harmful to public health in the way once thought. I should have thought it possible, where the bacterial count was low, to omit he coliform test altogether.

I am somewhat disturbed about the provision governing the temperature at which the milk is to be delivered. The Order provides that the temperature must be maintained at less than 50 degs. F. in the retail containers. Is this practicable? The Scottish Association of Producer-Retailers conducted some experiments in September, 1963. A check was made of deliveries between 6.30 a.m. and 11 a.m. The milk was taken out of the cold store at a temperature of between 40 and 42 degs. F., and it was returned to the dairies at temperatures varying between 48 and 56 degs. F. Forty samples were taken. It is true that only two samples were over 54 degs. and they were off vans which had quite a long mileage to cover, in particular a long return mileage.

This temperature requirement will be difficult to comply with and difficult to enforce. It would have been better to provide for a temperature of 50 degs. F. at the last static storage point; in other words, taking it at the point at which the milk came out of cold store. I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that the expense of insulated vans would be prohibitive and their use would probably be impracticable where the milk was being delivered from door to door and the insulated container would be opened and closed many times.

Now, a question about licences. Under the old licence system for special designations, there has been some confusion as to whether a producer who held a "certified" licence and lost it would automatically qualify for a "tuberculin tested" licence. Although the Milk Marketing Board thought that he should automatically qualify, there were many cases in which local authorities did not automatically grant "tuberculin tested" licences.

The question I put to the hon. Lady is this. If a producer holds a "Premium" licence, will he automatically qualify for the "standard" licence as well? If a producer lost a "premium" licence and did not immediately qualify for the standard grade, things could be very awkward.

I am also concerned about the procedure under which the new licences are to be issued. The already existing licences under the special designations Order are to expire on 31st December this year. I should have thought it would have meant a lot of work for local authorities to issue the new grades of licences on a single date. I suggest that it might be more practicable to phase the issue of the new licences between now and 31st December.

Finally, I raise the question of prices. There is a lot of concern among producers in relation to the premium for milk of this quality. At the moment the Government are paying ¼d. a gallon for high quality milk. This ¼d. a gallon is passed on by the Milk Marketing Board to producer-retailers as an average sum in the calculation of the levy which producer-retailers pay to the Board. On average, the milk of producer-retailers is of higher quality than that of normal producers because the producer-retailer is far more in touch with the needs of the market and the needs of the consumer than other producers are. He is benefiting only to the extent of the average premium whereas his milk is of above-average quality. Would the hon. Lady comment on that?

I hope that when the prices Order is issued for these grades of milk there will be sufficient differential between these grades and the ordinary grades. Prewar the differential was between 2s. and 3s. a gallon. Now it is about 1s. a gallon. It is very costly to produce milk of this quality in terms of equipment, standards of staff and standards of management. Therefore, I hope that a sufficient differential will be offered.

While I welcome the Order, I think that the success of it and of these new grades will depend to no small measure on the kind of premium which is offered when the prices Order is issued.

11.17 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Judith Hart)

A great many detailed points have been raised in the debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) for giving us an opportunity to clarify some of the points, and I am very glad indeed of the welcome which he has given to the Order, particularly since I know how much work he devoted to this subject in the days before October.

I will try to deal with the points as they were raised. First, I take the point about names, because it is of some consequence. People attach a great deal of importance to the names of the foods and products which they use. The first, and main, point to be made is that the words "premium" and "standard" were chosen after a tremendous amount of discussion. I will indicate the channels of discussion by telling the House some of the names which were considered but not selected. For what was previously certified milk the following were considered: sub-certified, specially selected, super test, grade A, grade I, refrigerated attested, refrigerated certified, milk plus, quality certified and warranted. I could give a similar list for standard, including: untreated, unpasturised, milk, attested, premium, standard and grade B. My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) would probably have liked us to choose "milk" because that would have immensely simplified our legislation.

Mr. W. Baxter

"Milk" is quite a descriptive word for the fluid which comes from the cow.

Mrs. Hart

I am sure that next time we are revising the regulations we shall think of this point. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a great deal too much complication in our legislation. I could have wished that the Order was simpler.

I turn to the basis of the Order and shall answer some of the specific points raised. The Order arises from the fact that bovine tuberculosis was eradicated from cattle. This was achieved after a long campaign in which farmers were at first encouraged to eliminate the disease voluntarily. We arrived at a position when the designation "tuberculin tested" ceased to have any significance. That is the background to the Order because it was necessary to reconsider the grading of milk from the point of view of hygiene and safety—in other words, from the point of view of health.

I make it clear that the Order is designed for the ultimate protection of health and hygiene. It is not designed specifically for the milk producer. It tries to reconcile his interests with those of health and hygiene and does it very satisfactorily. It provides for two new grades of untreated milk, standard and premium, and continues the existing grades of treated milk, pasteurised and sterilised.

Questions were asked about prices. I fear I shall have to disappoint hon. Members. I must not enter the subject of milk prices. If I did, I should be in danger of getting out of order, because the subject of prices will be covered by a later order amending the Milk (Great Britain) Order, 1962, which is yet to be laid. It will be before the House fairly soon and any debate on prices will have to be considered in that context. Hon. Members on both sides have had an opportunity today to consider prices and I assure them that they will not have long to wait before they know something about the prices that will govern milk under this Order.

As is usual, the Order, when it was laid in February, had been drawn up after full consultations with all the interests concerned, but there were some difficulties. That is the answer to the question as to why there has been some time elapsed between the point at which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West left it and now. The proposals originally made were modified considerably because there were various representations and criticisms.

We believe that the Order now meets the needs of the situation as it has presented itself and provides a workable system. We believe that it will safeguard the consumer while allowing the milk producers and the milk trade reasonable opportunity to make any adjustment they need to make to working conditions when the designations "certified" and "tuberculin tested" are withdrawn at the end of the year.

I was asked about brucellosis. Both sides of the House are agreed that we must all work for complete eradication of brucellosis in cattle in Scotland. But we have found it impossible to make it a condition of premium grade in the Order that the milk should be free from brucellosis. We should like to do so in the interests of hygiene but we are advised that there is as yet no reliable test for freedom from the organisms of brucella. Clearly, until we have a reliable test we cannot impose conditions that imply that the milk could be so tested.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

Could not the Government make it obligatory to vaccinate with S.19 vaccine for much the same end in the interim period until a satisfactory test is evolved?

Mrs. Hart

It is not as simple as that. A great many efforts are going on in this direction. If it had been felt that the hon. Member's suggestion was practicable, it would have been done. I should be out of order, again, if I tried to discuss the question of how best we can deduce and eradicate brucellosis, but those consulted advised that it was impossible to provide a test because there was no reliable one, and a brucellosis general vaccination scheme is ultimately the only answer. What the hon. Gentleman suggests would not he practicable.

I was also asked about Resazurin tests rather than a count of bacteria. This is of great importance. There were two points at issue concerning the bacterial tests, the first being whether the present bacterial count test itself should be replaced or modified by the Resazurin test. Hon. Members who are agriculturists are familiar with these words. I have no doubt that I shall be able to pronounce them by the end of the debate, but at the moment I am stumbling over them. This, of course, is a dye test which measures bacterial activity. The second issue was whether, if there were to be a bacterial count, it should continue to be accompanied by a specific test for the absence of coliform bacteria from a given quantity of bacteria. Coliform bacteria are not in themselves likely to be specially pathogenic, but the question was whether their presence might indicate bad hygiene on the farm.

The original proposals for the dye test, which had already been adopted by the Scottish Milk Marketing Board for the keeping quality payments scheme, as the hon. Gentleman will know, were thought to be simpler and just as reliable as a bacterial count which revealed a bacterial activity acceptable for standard milk. For the level required for premium milk, the bacterial count was thought to be a more reliable test, and the coliform test therefore is not thought to add anything to the indication obtained from a count.

These original proposals were opposed by the local authority associations, the agricultural colleges and the Milk Marketing Board of the Aberdeen and District Area and by bacteriologists from a number of hospitals, universities and research institutes. It was argued that the modified Resazurin test had not been shown to be as good as a bacterial count and as coliform tests at reflecting conditions of milk production and the Resazurin test necessitated a complicated preliminary storage procedure which made it unacceptable for laboratory tests. The coliform test, it was argued, measured dairy hygiene by the only practical test for contamination from sources likely to contain human faeces and it was the test which 80 per cent. of the unsatisfactory milk failed and its significance was understood by the producers. With all these arguments, it was not felt that the proposals could be maintained against all the weight of this very expert opposition. That is the reason why this test was not included.

The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) asked a question about cooling to 50 degrees. The answer is simply stated. It is that the producer-retailer associations are very satisfied with the new requirement, and there is no need to assume that it will involve any difficulty.

The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) asked about the tribunals. The form laid down in the Order has been the basis of the tribunals for many years and there is no evidence that it has given rise to any unfairness; nor have we had any representations that it should be changed. The hon. Member may be theoretically right, but in practice it does not seem to have worried anybody.

I was asked about publicity and how people would know that standard milk was as good as T.T. milk. This is probably something that we can leave to the distributive trade. In all other aspects of publicity of consumer products it is not the producer who makes clear to the consumer precisely what is contained in the product but the retailer and the distributive trade which we know to be only too anxious to sell this milk and which will make the efforts necessary to make clear to the housewife exactly what the facts are.

I was asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West what records would be kept of long-keeping milk. I take his point about the need for this. But long-keeping milk, as I think he will agree, is still very much in the pioneering stage and it is very early for considering what may eventually be needed in this direction. However, I take the point and we will keep an eye on this.

The only other question was what happens to standard milk between the coming into operation of the title and September, 1966. The answer is very simple. If anyone wants to cool milk before September, 1966, to 50°F., he can do so and does not have to do so before that date.

If there is anything I have omitted, and I am sure that there is because I have not had time to go into the matters of great detail which have been raised, I will write to the hon. Members concerned.

May I say finally how much I welcome the Order and the attitude of hon. Members opposite to it? I think that it will go a long way to meet a need in Scotland which we believe we are meeting in the best way possible.

Mr. Stodart

With the leave of the House, may I thank the hon. Lady for her explanations and for dealing with Resazurins so successfully.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.