MILK AND DAIRIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.] (Hansard, 14 July 1909)

§ THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND)
My Lords, your Lordships will probably not desire that I should make any lengthy observations on the Second Reading of this Bill, more especially as it is pre-eminently a Committee Bill rather than a Bill in which any matter of far-reaching principle is raised. It is, in the first place, a consolidating Bill, and, in the second place, it carries the existing legislation in some respects a stage further.
The existing law in Scotland, as your Lordships are probably aware, is to be found in Sections 60 and 61 of the Public Health Act, 1897, in Sections 83 and following of the Burgh Police Act, 1903, in the Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milkshops Order, 1885, and subsequent amending Orders, made under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, in the Cattlesheds in Burghs Act, 1866, and in various provisions in local Acts obtained by the larger burghs. The last two heads are not touched by the present Bill, but the other enactments are consolidated by the Bill and some of their provisions carried further. The sections of the Burgh Police Act deal chiefly with the supply of milk from cows suffering from tuberculosis, and give burghs certain powers as against rural areas of supply. The sections in the Public Health Act deal generally with cases of infectious disease traced to a milk supply. These provisions are generally re-enacted, and some new provisions are added to ensure the healthy condition of dairy employés and others engaged in handling milk. It may be mentioned that amid the restrictions on milk supply there is no provision in the Bill for the slaughter of diseased animals; that is dealt with by the recently-issued Order of the Board of Agriculture, which, as your Lordships know, applies to Scotland as well as to England.
Another part of the Bill re-enacts, with amendments, the provisions of the Dairies Order of 1885. The main changes made are as follow. For the registration of dairymen is substituted the licensing of the premises used by them. It is now made mandatory, and not optional, for local authorities—that is to say, district committees—to make 512 by-laws for various purposes connected with the conditions under which dairies and milk shops are kept. The central public health authority—the Local Government Board—is empowered to make general regulations regarding the treatment and transit of milk intended for public consumption. For the occasional inspection of dairies upon complaint arising is substituted a regular inspection, and the appointment of a veterinary inspector is made possible by all local authorities and obligatory if the Local Government Board require it.
The only other part of the Bill now requiring to be referred to consists of several clauses inserted to make the enforcement of the law regarding milk supplies more effective. Thus, the Local Government Board has conferred upon it for this purpose the power which it has under the Public Health Act of going to the High Court to get a compulsitor placed upon a local authority neglecting its duty with regard to milk supplies; and, similarly, the local authority of an area importing milk may appeal to the Board to put this machinery in motion against the local authority of an area from which it imports milk, if the latter is neglecting its duty under the Act. Perhaps I should also mention that by-laws regarding the structure, lighting, ventilation, &c., of dairies are not to be applicable to dairies where the dairymen themselves sell milk in small quantities only, to persons in their employment, or to neighbours.
Those are the principal points in this Bill, and I feel sure your Lordships will be in entire sympathy with its object, which is to protect the milk supply principally of the great urban communities. In so doing the Bill seeks to avoid imposing on the rural areas from which the milk comes any conditions which are likely to be too onerous for those rural districts. I trust your Lordships will be good enough to give the Bill a Second Reading. I am aware, from representations I have already received, both orally and written, that there are many points of interest, many points which require elucidation, and many points possibly which require further examination by those responsible for the Bill; and I can assure your Lordships that I shall be very happy, on behalf of the Government, to give the fullest consideration to any points which may arise.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of offering any opposition to the Motion for the Second Reading, and with regard to the Bill as a whole I do not think that I have any grave objections to offer to its provisions so far as they relate to the matter of milk. As the noble Lord has said, this Bill is, perhaps, more a Bill for Committee. There are a good many points which will have to be raised in Committee, and probably that will be the more convenient opportunity for dilating on several of the matters in the Bill at greater length. But there are one or two points which seem to me not very clear, and on which I should like some information.
In the first place, I think that some explanation ought to be given of the word "dairy," because as the definition stands now it is at least doubtful to what dairies it is intended to apply—whether the Bill is limited solely to dairies from which milk is sold, or whether it includes private dairies. And in the same way with regard to the word "dairyman." The definition of "dairyman" as it stands includes a cowkeeper. I do not know whether that is intended to include every person who keeps cows; if so, it is very evident that the quantity of inspection under the Act will be almost without limit.
Taking the points which were dealt with by the noble Lord, I see that there is a proposal that the Local Government Board should make general Orders. When we come to Committee I will suggest that those Orders ought to be laid on the Table of both Houses; but, in passing, I may say that one reason why I personally think this Bill worthy of approval is that it abstains for the most part from giving absolute powers to the Department. That has been the general tendency in the legislation which is proposed to us, and I believe it is to be found in the corresponding Bill which is not in this House. But I am glad to say that I do not see more than one occasion on which that objection can be taken to this Bill.
If the noble Lord will look at Subsection (2) of Clause 13 he will see that power is given to a man to sell a tuber- 514 culous cow; and all he has to do when I parting with that valuable animal is to— give notice of such disposal to the medical officer of health of the district in which the dairy is situated, specifying the destination of the animal and stating the name and address of the person to whom it is consigned. If the noble Lord will look at the Order, on which I shall have to say a word in a moment, he will find that a man is there prohibited, very properly I think, from parting with these animals. They have first of all to be examined, and then, if found infected with tuberculosis, have to be slaughtered. That seems to me inconsistent with the subsection to which I have just referred. I think the mode of dealing with the urban authority intruding upon the rural authority is in accordance with the regulation which prevails at the present time, and I am glad that the noble Lord has preserved it; it has worked very well so far as I am aware, and it is the sensible way of dealing with what is confessedly one of the greatest difficulties with regard to milk traffic.
There is another point I should like to bring to the noble Lord's notice. While laying down stringent conditions with regard to the examination and inspection of milk, butter, cheese, and so on, in Scotland, there is nothing in the Bill which imposes any similar restrictions or special inspection with regard to these articles coming from abroad. I have been informed that butter is very nearly as dangerous as milk. A great deal of butter does come from abroad, and it is very desirable that the same sort of inspection should be applied to foreign butter as is applied to Scottish butter. That is, I think, all on this point that it is necessary for me to trouble your Lordships with at this stage. I shall no doubt put down some Amendments for Committee, and then I shall, perhaps, speak at rather greater length.
But there is one point to which I wish to call the attention of the House, and that is Clause 25, by which all expenses incurred by the local authority for the purposes of this Bill are to be chargeable on the public health general assessment. That introduces a very large and important subject. The way in which rates are being piled up is really getting beyond human endurance. I do not say that any Government is free from just accusation on this subject, but I 515 believe the present Government has sinned in this particular direction more than any Government that ever existed. Take the additions which are actually being put on at this moment. You have a large expenditure being placed on the ratepayers for medical examination of children; then there is the expense for the staffing of schools; and an enormous expenditure is going to be entailed upon the ratepayers by the Housing and Town Planning Bill—really the most formidable of all. But in this matter of milk, which really cannot be said to affect the ratepayers solely, and, indeed, is not so important to the ratepayers as it is to the general public, you are going to impose not one burden but two. An Order, dated May 25, has recently been issued by the Board of Agriculture—this Order, of course, they have power to enforce by Statute—which is going to impose upon the ratepayers the whole of the expense of compensating persons who have tuberculous cows that are slaughtered. Dr Nathan Raw, who, I believe, is a great authority on this question, speaking the other day, said he understood there were between 200,000 and 300,000 tuberculous cows in this country. The proposal in that Order is that within a comparatively short time those cows are to be slaughtered and the expense is to fall upon the rates.
The Board of Agriculture are well aware of the heavy burden they are going to impose on the ratepayers, and, very wisely, do not attempt to conceal it. In the letter which covers the Order it is stated that they are well aware that the initial expense must be very heavy. They say that they made the Order only after very careful consideration of the liabilities thrown on local authorities, but they add that they believe public opinion is favourable to the adoption of concerted measures, and so on. I believe they are quite correct in that. But just think what the expense will be. I do not know whether the President of the Board of Agriculture has formed any estimate of the expense, but if all these cows are to be slaughtered within the next two or three years the rate will have to be reckoned, not in pence, but almost in shillings. We cannot, as I have said, touch this Order, and the enormous expense of carrying it out falls upon the ratepayers.
Then we come to this Bill. It becomes a question, when this enormous expense is going to be thrown on the ratepayers, 516 whether we are justified in going further and placing upon them the expenditure for veterinary officials and other expenses incurred under this Bill. I hope that when we reach the next stage of the Bill the noble Lord will be in a position to tell us that a portion, at all events—a considerable portion it ought to be—of this expenditure will be met by the State. As I have said, this question of milk is not one which affects the ratepayers solely, or, indeed, principally. It affects the whole country, and it is therefore not fair, as it seems to me, to impose the burden upon a limited class. I do not ask the noble Lord to give me any reply now, but I hope that at the next stage of the Bill he will be in a position to make some reassuring statement to the House; and if he does not do so we must reserve to ourselves full liberty as to what future action we may deem it necessary to take in the interests of the ratepayers.

§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE)
I do not wish to take any part in the discussion on this Bill, except to ask the noble Earl a question arising out of the last part of his speech. I have certainly no desire to dispute the statement that heavy burdens fall upon the ratepayers, and that where possible in certain cases we should all be glad to see them relieved from general public sources. But it is with regard to the particular question of the number of cows which would have to be slaughtered under the proposed conditions that I desire to ask him a question. The noble Earl mentioned the number as something between 200,000 and 300,000 that would have to be slaughtered.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
I said that was the statement which Dr. Nathan Raw made.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
What I wanted to ask the noble Earl was whether these were cows that were tuberculous simply to the extent of reacting to the tuberculin test, or whether they were cows which come under the definition of cows that ought to be slaughtered—namely, cows which actually have tuberculosis of the udder or are so emaciated by tuberculosis as to give milk that is contaminated. I confess I cannot believe that the number of those cows reaches anything approaching 200,000.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
As I have said, the statement I made is not my own but that of an eminent doctor. I think those of your Lordships who are acquainted with the country must be well aware that there is a great deal of tuberculosis in cows, and that the more highly bred the herds are the larger, unfortunately, is the amount of tuberculosis. I cannot vouch for this number of 200,000. All I can say is that I have seen an enormous number of tuberculous cows myself, and I expect other noble Lords have had a similar experience. Every one connected with agriculture is well aware that this disease is very widely prevalent indeed, and I think a deputation from the Central Chamber of Agriculture waited upon a Minister to-day with reference to that very matter. I am afraid that if the noble Earl thinks the amount of tuberculosis is small he will find that he is greatly mistaken.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
I do not at all dispute that, but my point was that a distinction should be drawn between cows which are technically tuberculous because they react to the test, and cows which ought to be destroyed forthwith because they give tuberculous milk.