§ The provisions of the Public Health Acts and the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, with respect to nuisances and the sale of food so far as the same relate to milk and dairies.
§ The Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1907, so far as they relate to the sale of milk.
§ The Public Health (London) Act, 1891, sections sixty-nine and seventy-one.
§ The Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907, sections fifty-three and fifty-four.
§ The infectious Diseases Prevention Act, 1890, section four.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNMy Lords, with regard to this schedule I wish to make a few remarks and to ask for some explanation. In the first place the form of the schedule is very unusual; I do not know whether there is any precedent for it. The Fourth Schedule contains the enactments which are repealed. To that form we are all accustomed. But this Fifth Schedule is quite novel, so far as I know. It is headed "Enactments saved," and then it proceeds to enunciate in general terms tire provisions of certain Public Acts which it is proposed to retain. That seems to introduce an element of uncertainty which is not very desirable, and to which the Central Chamber of Agriculture have objected. They say they will not know what the law is; that questions might be raised under this Fifth Schedule with regard to points on which they could not be certain what the law was.
Quite apart from that, this Fifth Schedule was objected to by the promoters of the Bill themselves. What they said was this. I have in my hand the Memorandum which preceded this Bill when it was introduced in the House of Commons and which, I am inclined to think, remained in the Bill until it left the House of Commons. That Memorandum said—
It is obviously impossible to produce a complete code of the law relating to milk and dairies—I thought that was what we were doing—The law as to nuisances and the sale of food and drugs affects milk and dairies, yet must be left outstanding in the Public Health Acts and 587 the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts. But by the Fifth Schedule an attempt has been made to collect, for the information of dairymen, the chief provisions affecting them outside the scope of the present Bill.Why should we put into the present Bill enactments which are outside the scope of the Bill? This Memorandum—I do not know exactly how it is—has disappeared. In any case it would not be part of the law; therefore I do not see that this Schedule will convey any intelligence to anybody. I should like to ask why this Schedule has been inserted, and whether there is any good reason for inserting it. It seems to me undesirable to introduce a novel procedure of this sort which, at all events, leaves the Central Chamber of Agriculture and others in uncertainty as to whet the law is.
§ LORD SANDERSONMy Lords, as I think there is no other member of the Joint Consolidation Committee present, I venture to offer a few explanations. The Bill was referred by I he House of Commons to the Joint Consolidation Committee, who made a Report upon it, after hearing experts and the draftsman, which has not been circulated to the House but of which I have a proof copy, and as it is exceedingly short I might perhaps read out to your Lordships the pertinent passage. After stating they had considered the Bill and that in their opinion it represents simply present law, the Committee state that they have amended the Bill with respect to the date of its commencement—a merely formal amendment—and then go on to say:
The Committee think it right to point out that the Bill differs from other Consolidation Bills which they have approved, in that it represents a part only of the law relating to its subject-matter. They understand, however, that there are difficulties in including the whole of the law affecting milk and dairies in one Bill, and it is desired that the law should be consolidated to this limited extent.I might explain that the five Acts of which sections are stated in the Fifth Schedule to be saved are in themselves Consolidation Acts on certain subjects. The Public Health and the Sale of Food and Drugs Act and the Infectious Diseases Act are all of recent date, and if the particular passages mentioned in this schedule relating to milk were taken out and put into this Consolidation Bill and these enactments in the previous Acts repealed, we should be cutting in pieces Consolidation Acts quite recently passed. 588 It was thought not desirable to do that, but that as far as possible the rest of that law should be consolidated. This Bill was therefore produced, and these five enactments were inserted in the Fifth Schedule for the purpose of calling the attention of dairymen and others to the provisions in these particular Acts which affect them. If this Filth Schedule is struck out, the Chambers of Agriculture will certainly not be less in doubt as to the law than they would be if it remains. The only object of this schedule is to call the attention of dairymen and Chambers of Agriculture to the fact that these enactments exist. The Fifth Schedule, therefore, appears to me to be at least innocuous. But if it is desired to have the whole of the law relating to milk and dairies consolidated, then this Bill will have to be redrafted.
§ LORD HYLTONI hope, my Lords, after the very clear and exhaustive statement of Lord Sanderson, who spoke on behalf of the Consolidation Committee to whom this Bill was referred, that Lord Camperdown will be satisfied with the explanation that has been given.
§ LORD HYLTONThe Bill represents no new legislation whatsoever. It is simply a Consolidation Bill containing the existing law in the principal measures relating to milk and dairies, and it has been before the Consolidation Committee. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Loreburn, the Chairman of that Committee, is not present, but Lord Sanderson has fully explained the reasons which induced the Consolidation Committee to put in this Fifth Schedule.
§ LORD SANDERSONWe did not put it in; it was put in by the framers of the Bill.
§ LORD HYLTONThe reason, at all events, has been stated for the existence of this Fifth Schedule, and I hope that in the circumstances Lord Camperdown will be satisfied with the explanation given.
§ EARL ST. ALDWYNMy Lords, I do not know what my noble friend Lord Camperdown may think, but I confess I do not feel at all satisfied with the explanation. I have had some experience of legislation, but I never saw such a schedule before. It is an absurd schedule on the 589 face of it, because it is a schedule of enactments saved. If enactments are not repealed, of course they are saved. The enactments repealed by this Bill are set out in the previous schedule. This Fifth Schedule is really absurd surplusage, from my point of view. And it is not necessarily innocuous for this simple reason, that it is just possible there may be provisions affecting this Bill besides the enactments named in this saving schedule which will still remain law, and, if so, the schedule will mislead the agricultural interest by not being complete. I should like to know what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack thinks of legislation of this kind. To me it appears to be a bad specimen of the slipshod action of draftsmen in dealing with these matters. If these various provisions are part of the law relating to milk and dairies as such, they ought to have been set out in this Consolidation Bill. If they are not part of the law, then there is no question about them. But this schedule has no operative effect at all, because if these things are not repealed they remain the law. If the noble Earl divides the House against the retention of this schedule I shall vote with him.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNAs Lord Hylton expressed the hope that I was satisfied, I suppose I ought to tell him exactly what my state of mind is. I listened very carefully to what Lord Sanderson said, but his explanation left the thing exactly as I said it was. It is proposed, apparently, by this Fifth Schedule to call the attention of dairymen to what the law is. Well it is the business of dairymen to know what the law is without having their attention called to it. I agree with what my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn said, that there may be other provisions which are the law besides those referred to in this schedule; and the dairyman's attention not being also called to them, he will have quite a reasonable ground for complaint. This schedule, as Lord St. Aldwyn said, has no operative effect whatever. It is an absurdity. Lord Sanderson has told us that it was not put in by the Committee but by the draftsman. I do not see why we should insert in this Bill a schedule the like of which has never been seen before, and it really appears to me to be much more of a disadvantage than advantage. I do not know whether the House is inclined to divide on the matter, but up to the present I think no possible case has been made out for this 590 schedule. I do not see that the Bill derives the slightest advantage from its retention, whereas there is great disadvantage in putting it in, as the draftsman himself, in the Memorandum which I have read, admitted that it was imperfect, and that he could not attempt to give a complete definition of what the law was. What is the good of putting into a Bill a schedule which its author confesses is imperfect?
§ LORD HYLTONI can only say that my attention was not drawn to this matter until I came into the House; otherwise I would have made inquiries about it. I am afraid a certain responsibility rests on the Consolidation Committee in this matter.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNNo. The Consolidation Committee, through Lord Sanderson, expressly deny that they had anything to do with this schedule. They say it was introduced by the draftsman of the Bill.
§ LORD SANDERSONThe Committee do not say that this schedule was introduced by the draftsman of the Bill. The Bill came to them with this schedule in it as it was introduced in the House of Commons, and with an explanatory Memorandum. The Committee did not strike out the schedule. The Bill is called a Consolidation Bill when, as a matter of fact, it only consolidates a portion of the law, and this schedule calls attention to that fact.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, has appealed to me, and I think it only right to say that I agree to a great extent with what has been said by the two noble Earls. But I would ask them whether it is worth while objecting too strongly to a schedule which, after all, only intends to do this. This Bill deals with the subject of milk and dairies, on which there is already existing a large quantity of legislation. It repeals certain sections of existing Statutes, and all that this last schedule says is that you must bear in mind that unless these Acts set out in the Fifth Schedule are expressly varied by this Bill 591 they still remain applicable to the case. I think the criticism that has been directed against the schedule is somewhat justified as a matter of drafting, but surely there is no harm in it. I do not know what induced the draftsman to use that form, but I would ask the noble Earl whether he thinks it worth while pursuing the matter ally further, seeing that only a little more has been put into the Bill than it was necessary to introduce.
§ EARL ST. ALDWYNThe noble and learned Lord has admitted that my noble friend and I are absolutely right, but has appealed to our mercy to allow the Bill to pass in its present form. I hope my noble friend Lord Camperdown will allow the Bill to pass as it is, because I think the noble and learned Lord will take care that this does not happen again.
§ Fifth Schedule agreed to.
§ Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.