§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I must express the regret of the Government that such a course is necessary. We should have preferred to have allowed the Act of 1915 to come into force as provided for by the Act passed in 1917. That is the object that Lord Strachie has in view in the Motion he has tabled opposing this Bill.
The reason why we find it necessary to postpone the operation of that Act—it is not scrapped, as stated in some portions of the Press, but merely postponed for three years—is that at the present time it is impossible to afford the cost which would be entailed. The Act of 1915 places new duties on county councils, and the cost of these new duties has been carefully estimated. In 1920 an Inter-Departmental Committee went into the whole question of the working of the Act and they arrived at the conclusion that it would cost£700,000 a year. The Ministry of Health also went into the matter independently and arrived at approximately the same figure, just a little less. In addition to this£700,000 a year there is also to be considered the amount of money necessary for the payment of compensation in connection with tuberculosis, which is estimated at£150,000 a year, so that the cost of putting the Act into complete operation would be£850,000 a year.
That is only a beginning. As time went on the expenditure would tend to increase, and I am advised that in a few years the approximate cost of working the Act would be close on£1,000,000 a year. It might fall a little afterwards, if and when tuber 1173 culosis was eradicated. For these reasons we do not find ourselves able to bring the Act into force in September next, and we are therefore asking Parliament to postpone it for a further period of three years. If that is to be done legislation is necessary. Legislation is also necessary because on September 1 next two Orders, issued by the Food Ministry, expire, and something will have to be put in their place. These Orders relate to the grading of milk and the prevention of adulteration. The principles embodied in the Orders have been generally accepted, and I believe the public would desire that they should be continued.
The present Bill seeks to do three principal things. It seeks to protect the consumer from milk being sold which is contrary to the interests of public health. It seeks to provide milk at a cheap rate, and plenty of it, drawn from herds winch are inspected and free from gross bacteriological contamination—a class of article which it is easy and open for every decent farmer to produce without difficulty. In the third place; it prohibits the sale of milk from a cow suffering from tuberculosis of the udder. Those are the three main principles of the Bill, apart from the postponing clause. I will ask your Lordships to turn to the clauses in order, and I will try to explain them. I have already dealt with Clause 1.
Clause 2 gives power to local authorities to remove a retailer from the register, if it appears to them necessary in the interests of the public health. I do not think that provision is objected to in any quarter. I have seen a number of those interested in the trade, and I have not heard from them any serious objections to this provision. It is, of course, a provision which requires very careful safeguarding, and the necessary safeguard is provided in the second and third subsections of the clause. The safeguard is this. If a local authority wishes to remove a retailer from the register, the person whom it is suggested should be removed has the right of appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. If, after that, he still has cause of complaint, he will have the right of appeal to a Court of Quarter Sessions. In the Bill as it stands, I am not sure that this is quite clear, but I propose to take legal advice on the subject, and, if it is not clear, I propose, if your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading, to move an Amendment 1174 in Committee to make this right of appeal to Quarter Sessions perfectly plain.
I come to Clause 3, which deals with licences by the Minister, of Health to sell milk under special designations. The three designations which we contemplate in the Bill are "Certified," "Grade A," and "Pasteurised." I will briefly indicate to your Lordships the kind of milk which it is proposed should be sold under these designations. We propose that "Certified" milk should be practically the same as that which is now described as "Grade A (Certified)" milk; in fact, I think it is proposed that the Order shall be in similar terms to that which now describes "Grade A (Certified)" milk. The designation which requires most explanation is "Grade A." "Grade A" milk will be defined under an Order which has not yet been issued—in fact, it has not yet been drafted—and we propose to consult the trade, the producers, and all those interested, with a view to obtaining their advice and assistance in regard to that Order. Briefly, "Grade A" milk will be milk drawn from inspected herds. It will be free from gross bacteriological contamination, and the Order will allow that every decent farmer and every well-conducted establishment shall be able to produce it without difficulty.
With regard to "pasteurised" milk. The word "pasteurised" will be defined by Order, which will show how it applies when a dealer wishes to use that designation for the purpose of sale. We have not drafted the Order, and we propose to consult the interests before doing so, but I should like to take an illustration which may serve to make the matter clear to your Lordships. Supposing the Order defined "pasteurised" milk as milk pasteurised by the holding process—that is merely a hypothesis, for the terms of the Order have not yet been settled—it would mean that, unless a man had pasteurised his milk by that process, he would not be able to describe it under that designation for the purpose of sale, though it would not prevent him from pasteurising his milk by the flash process if he wished to do so. I am merely using that as an illustration, to make it clear to your Lordships, but it should be understood that the actual terms of the Order are not yet settled.
Clause 4 is perfectly plain. It merely carries out the present Order prohibiting the addition of colouring matter and other 1175 substances to milk. Clause 5 is one of the most important in the Bill. It prohibits the sale of milk from a cow suffering from tuberculosis of the udder. Perhaps your Lordships may inquire how this clause is likely to work. I think that every good farmer will recognise when a cow is suffering from this disease, if the disease is at all pronounced, and, if he has any suspicion of it, no Order will be necessary to induce him immediately to call in a veterinary surgeon to find out whether the cow is suffering from any such disease. If he finds that she is so suffering, he will stop the production of milk from that cow. That is obvious.
Again, supposing a man is producing "Grade A." milk, his herd will be inspected and there will be no risk. But supposing a man is ignorant, and does not recognise that his cow is suffering from this disease, the milk will be sold, and probably, indeed almost certainly, the local authority will discover in some way or another that milk with tuberculosis germs is being produced. They will make inquiries, and will trace the milk to a certain farm. They will cause an investigation to be made, and the cow will be discovered. If it turns out that the producer was knowingly selling this milk, a prosecution may ensure, but if he does not know, he will be warned. A deliberate offender will be dealt with very severely under subsection (2). Your Lordships will see that the penalty for a gross offence is a very severe one, and permits of a fine of £100 and imprisonment with hard labour for six months. I think your Lordships will agree that an attempt of a serious kind is here made to prevent this source of danger.
Clause 6 lays down that Orders made under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts should be made with the concurrence of the Minister of Agriculture as well as the Minister of Health. They are Orders which affect both Ministers, and ought, therefore, to be made conjointly. Clause 7 provides for the regulations to be made by the Minister of Health in regard to imported milk, and is intended to place imported milk on all fours with milk produced in this country. It merely reiterates the provision which already exists enabling the Minister to do so. The next clause is the penal clause, and Clause 9 enables the Minister of Health to declare by what local authorities the provisions of the Bill shall be enforced.
1176 Clause 10 applies the Bill to Scotland, and there is one point in it which I think ought to be explained, namely paragraph (e). That paragraph results from what occurred during the war, when certain burghs in Scotland were unable to obtain milk in the ordinary way, and consequently a Food Order was issued which enabled the local authority to act as dealer, if necessary. I believe that advantage of this Order was taken only at Saltcoats and Stornoway. Saltcoats has abandoned it, but, in the Island of Lewis, it appears that not enough milk is produced to supply the burgh of Stornoway, and, therefore, Stornoway had to go to the mainland. There was no one willing to undertake the duties of distribution, and the town council had to step in. They have continued to do so since the war. If the burgh does not supply milk, the inhabitants will not get any, and it is proposed, therefore, to allow these powers to be continued. I may describe the Bill as a modest one, but I think it covers three very important points. While I regret that it is necessary to postpone the Act of 1915, I trust your Lordships will agree to do so, and will give a Second Reading to this Bill. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
§ LORD STRACHIE had given Notice that, on the Motion for the Second Reading, he would move, That the Bill be read 2athis day three months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in making the Motion which stands in my name, I am considering the omissions from this Bill rather than that which it includes. The noble Earl has told us that it proposes to postpone the Act of 1915 for three years. That, he says, is entirely on the ground of expense. I will deal with that later, but I would point out to him that such bodies as the council of the Bath and West of England Agricultural Society, the council of the Central Landowners' Association, and last, but not least, the council of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, have all asked for the Act of 1915 to be put into operation. I also noticed last month that the National Co-operative Milk Consumers, at a conference at Birmingham, asked that the Act of 1915 should be put into operation. On the other hand, I am aware that a large number of people are opposed to the Act; some because they think it goes too far, and others because they think it does not go far enough. I 1177 may remind your Lordships that the Government of which the noble Earl is a member not long ago introduced, in another place, another Milk Bill which extended the Act of 1915 to such a drastic extent that even the present House of Commons would not pass it, and it had to be withdrawn.
§ As to the ground of expense, I think that is why the National Farmers' Union are asking that it should be postponed, but if the noble Earl had told them that it would cost£850,000 a year, and that the expense would increase subsequently to£1,000,000, I think they would have asked not to have it postponed but to have it scrapped entirely. But I at once controvert the statement of the noble Earl that it would cost£850,000 a year at once, and in the future£1,000,000 a year. On the other hand, I am ready to admit, knowing the love for expenditure of this Government, that they would very likely make that expenditure upon it, and perhaps even more; but I would point out that the whole of the expenditure, excepting that with regard to the Tuberculosis Order, comes under Section 1, which is permissive in this sense, that it can only be put into force after Orders have been made by the Local Government Board and approved by the Minister of Agriculture, to which either House can object. Therefore, it will be seen that the expenditure would only be expenditure into which the Government had deliberately entered.
§ Knowing the extravagance of the Ministry of Health, and how it delights in setting up large bodies of officials, I should not be surprised if the expenditure were large. In 1914, when the Ministry of Health was then the Local Government Board, there were only twenty-nine officials with a salary of£1,000 a year and upwards, whereas in 1921 there were 298. Consider Clause 3. Under that clause a licence to sell "Grade A" milk is made compulsory. Consequently, you would have to have inspectors going round to see whether a mans premises were in such a condition that he could be given a certificate, so that there would he all the expenses of travelling, of motors, and of officials tearing all over the country inspecting farmers' premises to see whether they were entitled to sell "Grade A" milk.
§ I would ask whether it is desirable that the Ministry of Health should set up by legislation "Grade A" milk and "Pasteurised" milk, because I should like to 1178 refer to what Mr. Wilfrid Buckley, of the Pure Milk Society, is reported in the "British Farmer" to have said. He urged the classification of milk grades, although he admitted that this might tend to the production of "Grade A" milk where the poor would suffer, it would lead in the long run to the education of the farmer, and a general improvement in milk supply, all round. It may be desirable to educate the farmer and to improve the milk supply all round, but I ask whether it is desirable that the poor should have to suffer while this is going on, as is stated by this High Priest of the Pure Milk Movement. Under the Act of 1915 there was no distinction between milk for the rich and milk for the poor. Nobody was allowed to put milk on the market which was not pure, and I think it is a mistake to have these two grades of milk. I cannot help thinking it is more or less of an American and a rich man's fad, brought in by certain well-meaning people who think it desirable to legislate upon everything we do. Further, I should like to ask the noble Earl what effect the repeal of the Act of 1915 will have upon a very large number of private Acts which have been passed.
§ LORD STRACHIEThat is what I complain of, because under the Act of 1915 all these private model milk clauses are to be scrapped, and the Act of 1915 is to take their place. Many of the Bills which have lately been passed through Parliament have contained clauses which said that the private milk clauses only remained in force until the Act of 1915 came into operation. The effect will be that these provisions, inserted as temporary measures, will go on permanently.
I am sorry to notice a very grave omission from this Bill in regard to the protection for farmers. Under the Act of 1915 there was a most valuable clause, Clause 8, which provided that no proceedings were to be taken against any person unless, at the time the sample was taken, the milk was in his custody or control, or contained in a churn or other receptacle sealed or closed in accordance with a Milk and Dairies Order. That was put into the Act of 1915 as a safeguard for agriculturists, and it was one for which farmers had been asking continually. I know that in the House of 1179 Commons it was continually urged that it would be most unfair that farmers should be brought up before a criminal court and charged with having adulterated their milk when that milk had been for hours, perhaps even for days, out of their possession. The Act of 1915 gave them this protection, which they looked upon as a very valuable one. I am sorry to see that there is no similar provision in this Bill. I hope that, if an Amendment is moved to include it, the noble Earl will give it careful consideration, and that he will be ready to do something to give the farmer the protection which the Act of 1915 gave.
There was another provision in that Act in Section 8 which said—
The powers of a medical officer of health and of a person authorised by him or by the local authority under this section shall, except so far as the Local Government Board may otherwise direct, be exercisable only within the area of the local authority.Local authorities feel very strongly about this. They very much dislike a big authority, like Manchester, being able to send out on roving commissions all over the country, inspectors who are able to go into other areas and interfere with work that properly belongs to those areas. What has always been suggested—and that is the intention of the Act of 1915—is that if a city like Manchester or Birmingham makes any complaint that it is getting impure milk, it should communicate with the medical officer for the county or area whence the milk comes. There ought not to be any interference by an outside authority; that seems to be only reasonable.The noble Earl said that Clause 7 practically re-enacted what was in the Act of 1915. There is, however, a grave omission from the end of that clause, because it leaves out these words which were in Section 5 of that Act.
or for use in the manufacture of products for human consumption.It is very desirable, not only that foreign imported milk should be dealt with, but that any milk imported to be used for the manufacture of some other article should likewise be dealt with. I hope that the noble Earl, when dealing with Clause 9, will see that another difference in this Bill as compared with the Act of 1915 is removed, because under that Act the expenses would have to come under the Public Health Act, and land would, very properly, bear only one-quarter of 1180 the cost, instead of having to bear (as it would under this Bill) the full cost of the expenses under it.My principal complaint is that of omissions from the Bill, and not that it does any great harm, with the single exception that it sets up one standard of milk for the rich and another standard for the poor. I very much regret that the Act of 1915 has been postponed. I admit that if it were to cost the very large sum, amounting very soon to a million a year, which has been indicated, it could not be done in present conditions. But it is entirely in the hands of the Ministry of Health as to whether that enormous expenditure is necessary. On the other hand, there was much in the Act of 1915 which was very desirable, and which has been scrapped.
§ LORD STRACHIEWell, we shall see later. I only hope that the Amendments which I shall put down bringing the Bill more in accordance with the Act of 1915 will not be opposed by the noble Earl on the ground that they are already covered by the Bill. On the general question, I am entirely with the noble Earl in the desirability of having the purest milk. I am glad the Bill contains the clause about cows with tuberculous udders, because I suppose there may be a few people who, either from carelessness or wrong-headedness, keep cows which have tuberculous udders. I believe the number is very small indeed, since anyone who knows anything about cows can very easily detect when a cow has a tuberculous udder. I very much doubt whether any of that milk goes into consumption. The Act of 1915 was a compromise, arrived at after a great deal of discussion in the House of Commons when the issues were thoroughly thought out. So much was it regarded as a compromise and as a thoroughly good Bill that when it came to this House (I happened to have the honour of having charge of that Bill) it went through without discussion, and I believe without a single Amendment. For that reason I greatly deplore its postponement.
§
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and insert at the end of the Motion ("on this day three months").—(Lord Strachie.)
§ LORD DYNEVORMy Lords, this Bill postpones the coming into operation of the Milk and Dairies (Consolidation) Act of 1915, until, at the earliest, September 1, 1925. I certainly welcome the postponement of that Act, because it contains some very far-reaching clauses. I have been in communication with the National Farmers' Union and they, like myself, support this Bill. I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
§ VISCOUNT ASTORMy Lords, I trust you will give this Bill a Second Reading, and that the noble Lord opposite will not press his Motion for the rejection. I thought the noble Earl in introducing it made it perfectly clear that something had to be done, and that in these days of financial stringency it would be impossible to contemplate that in a few months' time the country should have to find something like£1,000,000, which was the figure at which he put the cost of applying the 1915 Act. He also indicated that there were at least two other provisions which had been brought in during the war under D.O.R.A., and subsequently incorporated in legislation, which would automatically lapse, to the detriment both of the agricultural industry and of the general consuming public. I can assure noble Lords that the milk interests, both producers and distributors, are ready for legislation on these lines. When I was at the Ministry of Health I was in touch both with producers and distributors. Previously, I had been chairman of an Inter-Departmental Committee on which the Ministry of Agriculture, the Local Government Board and the other Departments concerned were represented. We made certain unanimous recommendations, and the proposals contained in this Bill are consistent with, and on the lines of, some of our recommendations. The Bill represents, I am firmly convinced, the views both of producers and distributors.
I notice that in Clause 2 (1) it is proposed that local authorities should be given the power of removing retailers from the register. In a previous Act, a Scottish Milk Act, introduced by the Government and passed in 1915, the word "dairyman" was used instead of "retailer." It seems to me that it is unfair and anomalous to apply this clause to the producer-retailer, and not to the wholesaler. This proposal, as now drafted, affects only one section, whereas I think, it ought to affect all 1182 sections, of the trade. So far as I am aware, the agricultural representatives have not asked for the clause as drafted. Whenever I have heard them discussing it they have been quite willing to accept the suggestion that all sellers—producers, wholesalers, and retailers—should come under the operation of this subsection.
The noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill raised the question of grading milk which is contained in Clause 3. He referred to a statement which is alleged to have been made by Mr. Buckley.
§ LORD STRACHIEReported.
§ VISCOUNT ASTORI understand that is a misquotation, and that its accuracy has been denied in the Press. I am perfectly certain that the noble Lord would not wish to base his opposition or any of his arguments upon a quotation, the accuracy of which has been publicly denied in the Press. I suggest that your Lordships ought to take into consideration the fact that the Consumers' Council, which contained representatives of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress, the Workers' National Committee, the Parliamentary Committee of the Co-operative Congress, and the Standing Joint Committee of Industrial Women's organisations—that is to say, the organised representatives of Labour competent to speak for the poor—are in favour of and support grading. I trust your Lordships will no longer consider that this proposal is prejudicial to the poor consumer. It is, in fact, in operation now. The Bill does not introduce any new principle. It merely proposes to prevent from lapsing, and to perpetuate, a proposal which has been found to be beneficial both to the good producer and to the consumer who requires an improved article of consumption. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIREMy Lords, I also hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, will not persevere in his opposition to the Bill. The noble Earl who introduced it told us, in a lucid speech, that he much preferred the Act of 1915. We can understand that. He is a member of the Coalition Government, and the Act of 1915 will cost a million of money. On second thoughts, with perhaps some 1183 prudence, the noble Earl thinks it better to bring in another Bill which will put off the evil day for three years and, to a certain extent, will deprive the country of the consequences of this rather expensive Act. The noble Earl explained the Bill extremely well. As we understand it, there are three very good things in it. In the first place, farmers are not to be registered. That is a great blessing, for which they will thank Heaven. Secondly, colouring matter is not to be put into the milk, which is a perfectly right provision; and, thirdly, the sale of tuberculous cows is prohibited as well as that of tuberculous milk. In those circumstances, although this Bill may not go very far, I think it will do a certain amount of good, and I most earnestly hope the House will not support the Motion for its rejection.
§ LORD STRACHIEI am going to withdraw it, but I thought the noble Earl wanted to speak first.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWI am going to answer the noble Lord's questions and make an explanation. I am glad that the noble Lord thinks that the sins of the Bill are those of omission rather than of commission. As I said in my opening remarks, many people want the Act and the noble Lord has quoted a large number of people who want it. The noble Lord challenged the figures, and perhaps your Lordships will allow me to go into them in a little more detail. This is the figure of the inter-Departmental Committee, who thought it would be necessary to have five hundred veterinary surgeons.
§ LORD STRACHIEI said, if you put Section 1 into force. But there was no obligation to put it into force.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWAs the noble Lord says it is not necessary to put Section 1 into force, it is rather a paradox to bring into operation a Bill certain provisions of which are not going to be applied.
§ LORD STRACHIEWhere they are too expensive.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWI think the provisions of the Bill in regard to the 1184 inspection are too expensive. That is where the great expense comes in. It comes in with the veterinary surgeons, the sanitary inspections, travelling expenses and so forth, because a great deal of inspection is necessary. But I will not pursue that matter if the noble Lord is satisfied. The noble Lord referred to Clause 2, and I wish to point out that in subsection (2) of that clause the licensee would pay; the fee for the licence would cover that.
But the main point he made was against Clause 3 as to the grading of milk. He said that the Bill made a class of milk "Certified" milk, "Grade A" milk, and "Pasteurised" milk, which was only available for rich people. I hope that may not be the case. I certainly hope that "Grade A" milk and "Pasteurised" milk will be produced at a not very high cost. But Clause 1 of the Bill makes it possible for a local authority to stop a retailer selling milk which is not in the interests of public health. Therefore, I submit that all milk is protected in this sense, which is the object of Clause 1 of the Bill. The noble Lord also drew attention to Section 8 of the Act which affects Clause 4 of the Bill only—the prohibition of the adulteration of milk. Section 8 of the Act is the one which makes it necessary to have sampling. That, however, is a minor point which might be discussed in Committee, and the same remark may be made about Clauses 7 and 9.
In reference to what was said about retailers by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, I see the force and the logic of his argument, but I would ask him whether it is absolutely necessary. We propose in the Bill to protect milk when it passes from the retailer to the consumer, and to protect the consumer. The retailer, of course, understands his business. He knows his trade and knows about milk. If he gets into trouble with the local authority for selling milk of this kind, he will naturally go to the man from whom he bought it and refuse to deal with him any further. I presume that future contracts made between wholesalers and retailers will contain a provision making such contracts null and void if the milk supplied by the producer is milk which comes within the purview of this clause. That will produce the same result as the power to remove from registration; because if a producer supplies milk which is not saleable it will 1185 destroy his trade altogether. In practice, the protection is the same as if the clause for the removal from registration were applicable to the producer as well as to the retailer.
I am very much obliged to the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire, for his support, and I wish only to clear up one small point. The producers, the farmers, are registered under the Contagious Diseases Act, as I explained.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIREUnder the Act of 1915?
THE EARL OF ONSLOWNo, under the original Act, the Contagious Diseases Act. This clause, therefore, applies only to retailers. It would only apply to a producer if he were a retailer, and I can explain to my noble friend what the consequences would be if a producer was selling bad milk and got the retailer into trouble.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIREWhat happens to a farmer who is a retailer?
§ LORD STRACHIEI ask the leave of the House to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
§ LORD STRACHIEWill the noble Earl say on what day he intends putting the Bill down for Committee?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDMay I suggest that it be put down pro forma tomorrow, and then we can discuss on which day it shall be effectively taken.
§ LORD STRACHIEI hope that the noble Earl will not put it down for next week unless it be for Monday, because that week will be taken up with the meeting of the Royal Agricultural Society at Cambridge.
§ LORD STRACHIEI am afraid it would be too soon. I suggest this day week.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDI do not know that it is settled that your Lordships will meet next Monday. I will communicate with Lord Strachie to-morrow, if I may.