HL Deb 21 July 1939 vol 114 cc324-41

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

11.5 a.m.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM)

My Lords, you will be aware that milk policy has been the subject of a great deal of attention for a number of years. We have had a series of measures designed to provide temporary assistance to the milk industry against the effects of emergency conditions. Certain comprehensive proposals in regard to the industry were put forward by his Majesty's Government in a White Paper in the summer of 1937, and a Bill to implement these proposals was introduced into another place in November last. The provisions of that Bill were wide in scope and far-reaching their possible effects; inevitably they were the subject of much controversy and eventually the Bill was withdrawn so that the whole problem of milk policy could be re-examined. The present position is that, quite apart from the controversial nature of the subject of milk, there has been no time this Session to introduce any fresh comprehensive proposals. But existing legislation, which provides for Exchequer assistance on milk used in manufacture and the financing of schemes for increasing the demand for milk, in particular the milk-in-schools schemes, expires on 30th September next. Moreover, English and Scottish Milk Marketing Boards took steps to put into effect as from 1st October, 1938, a very important part of the proposals contained in the White Paper which were the granting of increased quality milk premiums so as to encourage and accelerate improvements in the quality of the milk supply.

The Bill now before your Lordships accordingly provides, up to the end of September, 1940, for three things—first, Exchequer contributions towards the cost of the premiums that are being paid by boards on quality milks; secondly, the continuance of Exchequer assistance in regard to the milk-in-schools schemes and further Exchequer assistance for any cheap milk schemes for mothers and young children; and thirdly, for limiting, on rather a new basis, milk producers' losses in respect of milk sold for butter or cheese manufacture. The first two parts of this programme are designed to lead to an increase in liquid milk consumption by gaining the greater confidence of the public in the purity and cleanliness of the milk supply and by taking steps to encourage milk consumption by those who need it most and are least able to afford it. The third part is necessary to protect milk producers from the serious effects of conditions over which they have no control—for example, the price level of imports of manufactured milk products—and so make them better able to play their part in carrying out what is now the constructive parts of the programme.

I think there is agreement on all sides that the main objective of policy, both from the point of view of the milk producers and of the nation as a whole, is to increase the consumption of liquid milk. Although this Bill is necessarily a measure of limited scope it is a further contribution to the solution of that problem. Clause 1 provides for Exchequer contributions to milk marketing boards, for the two years from 1st October, 1938, to 30th September, 1940, towards premiums paid by them to encourage quality milk production. This was foreshadowed in the White Paper of 1937 and the premiums have in fact been paid by the two main milk marketing boards. It is accordingly proposed to recoup them by Exchequer grants.

Clause 2 provides for the milk-in-schools scheme up to the end of September, 1940, and for any cheap milk scheme for expectant and nursing mothers and children under five. It differs from the previous provision under Section II of the Milk Act, 1934, in several rather important respects. There is no overriding financial limit to the annual Exchequer grant as there has been in the past. Up to October, 1938, the limit was £500,000 a year and this year it has been £750,000. It is estimated that the actual grant for next year may be £1,000,000, which is considerably higher than the grant in previous years. A change has also been made in the formula governing the maximum rate of Exchequer grant that may be made to milk marketing boards to enable them to carry out the necessary arrangements. They will now be able to cover the full real loss incurred by boards. It will apply retrospectively as from October, 1938, so as to cover in particular the increased cost of the milk-in-schools scheme during the current year, due to increasing consumption and to the increased distribution margin allowed for this service since last October.

My noble friend the President of the Board of Education recently described in your Lordships' House in replying to a Motion of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester the steps that are being taken to secure that the greatest possible advantage is taken of the milk-in-schools schemes, and I believe that no one can doubt the Government's desire to see the development of these schemes. As regards mothers and young children, although a scheme was introduced by the Scottish Milk Marketing Board for its area early this year, it has not been possible to begin such a scheme in England, but I am now glad to be able to say that agreement has within the last few days been reached with the English Milk Marketing Board as to the financial basis for such a scheme and I understand that the Board will submit a scheme at a very early date. In the meantime I can, I think, give a general indication of the lines that the scheme is likely to follow, which will be broadly similar to those of the Scottish scheme. It will provide for the supply of milk to local authorities for the purposes of their maternity and child welfare arrangements at a price of 2d. a pint, which is 1s. 4d. a gallon, and is little more than half the ordinary retail price. The purpose of the scheme is to enable the local authorities to extend their present services.

The development of the scheme will depend in the first place on the initiative shown by local authorities and in the second place on the response from the mothers and children. It will be for the local authorities to prepare their proposals and submit them for the approval of the Minister of Health. The scheme is designed to increase consumption by those who at present consume too little milk, and I am sure that local authorities will do everything within their power to encourage mothers and children to participate in the scheme. They will be able to authorise the supply of milk to the consumer free or for part payment or for full payment of the reduced price of 2d. a pint. The balance of the cost of any milk supplied to mothers and children at less than 2d. a pint will fall on the local authorities' funds under existing maternity and child welfare arrangements. The Exchequer grant until the end of September, 1940, will be sufficient to bring the Board's returns on milk supplied under the scheme up to an average of 1s. 2d. a gallon on the year. The rate of any grant for the future will be reviewed before the end of September, 1940, in the light of the experience gained. It is further proposed that the distributive margin on milk sold under the scheme shall be not more than 8d. a gallon. There is, of course, no compulsion on any distributor to supply this milk, but I hope that distributors will co-operate to make the scheme a success.

I now come to Clauses 3 to 5 of the Bill. These are designed to place a bottom in the market for milk used in the manufacture of butter or cheese. It is important to remember that under this Bill we are proposing to give very substantial assistance to milk producers by way of encouraging quality milk production. This represents a change of emphasis in our milk policy and it constitutes the main method of helping the industry during the two years to which the Bill relates. Assistance on milk for manufacture accordingly becomes a supplementary safeguard only. Its object is to prevent the persistence of low prices in the milk product market from jeopardising the success of the main proposals for encouraging quality milk production. It is, therefore, proposed to change the method and basis for granting such assistance. In future, this will depend on the course of prices of imported butter or cheese over six-monthly periods. Payments will be limited to certain standard quantities of milk. This is in accordance with the general principles of price insurance provisions, and production is not, of course, limited to those quantities. On present contract terms and in the light of present price relationships, the level of price insurance under this part of the Bill may, for the year 1938–39, be assessed, in the case of milk for butter, at 6.1d. per gallon in winter and 5.2d. in summer, and, in the case of milk for cheese, at 6.3d. per gallon in winter, and 5.1d. in summer. These are average figures for six-monthly periods. Remembering the purpose of the proposals, I think it will be found that they afford a reasonable measure of security for milk producers.

The Bill can, of course, only be regarded as an interim measure. Nevertheless, it provides for quality improvement in the milk supply, which is an essential feature of a sound national milk policy directed towards achieving increased liquid milk consumption. In the Government's view, however, the desired increase in liquid milk consumption is dependent not only on improvement in quality but also on improvements in method and organisation, particularly on the distributive side, leading to a reduction in costs and eventually in retail prices. The objective of permanent milk policy must be a self-supporting milk industry, assisted only so far as may be necessary to prevent the price structure from being undermined by low prices of competing milk products from overseas. In pursuance of that end, the Government is continuing to seek a means of approach to problems some of which, as the House will be aware, raise acute controversial issues. It has been suggested that the Government should initiate an expert inquiry into the costs of distribution. It must be remembered that a good deal of information derived from various sources is already available as to costs of distribution of milk, and the Government do not propose in the present Bill, which is essentially an interim measure, to ask for special powers to undertake a further inquiry. If, however, in connection with any further examination of the whole problem which is being undertaken, it is found necessary to add to our knowledge on this subject, the Government will take the necessary steps to this end.

Another aspect of long-term policy to which I should like to refer in connection with this Bill is the Attested Herds Scheme. My right honorable friend has recently had under review the future of this scheme and its relation to milk policy, and he has reached the conclusion that the payments made under the scheme in respect of disease eradication should be considered as far as possible independently of the various considerations affecting milk policy generally. It would be inappropriate in a purely interim measure such as the present Bill to include any long-term provisions relating to this matter. On the other hand, it is desirable that some indication should be given at this stage of the future of the Attested Herds Scheme as a disease eradication measure. It is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation, at the first suitable opportunity, providing for the extension to September 30, 1948, of the period of operation of the relevant provision under the Agriculture Act, 1937, which at present expires on January 31, 1941. But in so far as payments made solely in respect of disease eradication are made by way of compensation for the additional expenditure incurred in ridding a herd of tuberculosis and qualifying it for attestation, they should not be of indefinite duration, This principle is already applied in the case of the alternative bonus per head of cattle under the Attested Herds Scheme, which is payable over a period of three years, and it is proposed that after January 31, 1941, milk bonus payments under this scheme shall likewise only be received by an individual owner for a period of three years in all, including any period prior to that date in respect of which bonus has been paid. It is also proposed that the rate of this milk bonus up to September 30, 1943, shall be the same as at present—namely, one penny per gallon, or its equivalent in bonus per head. I am not in a position at present to indicate what the rate of bonus will be in the period subsequent to that date, but the matter will be reviewed during the preceding period in the light of the progress made by the scheme and of other considerations, and as long notice as possible of any proposed changes will be given.

Other matters of long-term policy will also require further consideration in the near future, but in the meantime I commend to the House the present proposals and I hope that they will serve to promote the interests not only of the milk industry but of the whole nation. I have taken longer than perhaps might have been expected at this sitting to elaborate some of the proposals contained in this Bill, because, as your Lordships will appreciate, I have to-day been able to make an announcement which my right honourable friend was not in a position to make when the Bill was being considered in another place. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Feversham.)

11.28 a.m.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)

My Lords, I want to raise one point only, which concerns Private Bill legislation. I must trouble your Lordships to throw your minds back some three years, when two Bills were brought into your Lordships' House, one by Poole and the other by Glasgow. It will be remembered that about three and a half years ago there was a nasty outbreak of typhoid on the South Coast of England, and Poole was especially a sufferer. The Corporation of Poole, very properly and rightly desiring to extend every protection they could to the inhabitants of and visitors to Poole, brought in a clause in their general Bill dealing with pasteurisation of milk. In the same Session quite a different scheme was brought in by Glasgow in a proposed Provisional Order. Under the Scottish procedure that Provisional Order was considered by my right honourable friend the Chairman of Ways and Means and myself, and we decided that the proposal was so novel that it should be brought before Parliament in a Bill. Glasgow then turned their Provisional Order into a Bill.

There was considerable objection from various interests to the proposal made by Poole. Among those who regretted that Poole had brought in this clause, although the Government admitted that they were perfectly right in doing everything they possibly could to safeguard their population, it was felt that this scheme of pasteurisation had better be dealt with by general legislation, rather than by particular legislation. I need not enumerate the numerous difficulties presented by this proposal to proceed by Private Bill. It was possible for the Minister of Health at the time to give an assurance to Poole that the danger of infection there was no greater than anywhere else in the country. To put the matter shortly, after a good deal of discussion my noble friend Lord Halifax, who was then leading your Lordships' House, said these words: In these circumstances the Government have reviewed the whole matter and I am authorised to announce that it is their intention to bring forward long-term legislation dealing with general milk policy in the near future. He also said: I am bound to agree with my noble friend Lord Cranworth that a question such as pasteurisation would be and must be more properly dealt with in general rather than local legislation. Consequently it would not be the wish of the Government that any provision to enforce it should be admitted in a Private Bill during the present Session. On that the Poole clause was withdrawn, and Glasgow dropped their Bill.

Now that speech of my noble friend Lord Halifax was made on April 27, 1937, and, as your Lordships are aware, in this spring the first Milk Bill was introduced in another place. That Milk Bill included provision for pasteurisation, but circumstances arose which necessitated the dropping of that Bill and the introduction of this Bill which my noble friend Lord Feversham has told you is of an interim character. What I would like to ask my noble friend is this. Supposing—I have not had any information that such an intention exists, but Bills for the next Session, as your Lordships are aware, are in process of being prepared—supposing some local authority brought in a Bill such as the Poole and Glasgow Bills for next Session, and deposited it in November, what attitude would the Government take in regard to that matter? Would they adhere to the view that such a proposal would be inopportune, and that an inquiry into the matter of pasteurisation would be difficult in the case of proposals put forward to your Lordships in a Private Bill? Because it is quite possible that a local authority—I have absolutely no information, as I have said—having seen the proposals of the Government, may bring them forward in a Private Bill. In any case I think we ought to ask the Government what attitude they would take if such a course was pursued.

11.34 a.m.

LORD SNELL

My Lords, the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill very wisely disarmed possible critics of it by confessing it was an interim measure. On those assurances we have no desire to oppose the Bill, but if it were put before your Lordships' House as a final or satisfactory solution of the milk problem we should feel that it ought to receive very careful thought and criticism. The Bill, however, is not of fundamental importance, but it does review, as I see it, the mechanism of distribution and makes proposals for the modification of that mechanism. There is a growing appreciation of the need for a greatly increased consumption of milk, but I feel that it will be a long time before the general public are convinced that milk is as safe as its food value is undoubted.

My own experience has been an almost continuous desire to avoid milk because of the dangers that were at least at one time associated with its consumption. There have been great questions raised as to the purity of its production, the dangers of its distribution, and so on, and therefore anything that we can do to assure the public that pure milk is now to be regarded as a possibility will be of very great value. Parents are, of course, being continuously educated in this matter by seeing the improved health of their children owing to school milk-consumption schemes, and the details of this Bill will appropriately be examined on the Committee stage. I only desire to say that what the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees, has said about Lord Halifax's declaration is of some importance. Even under the pressure that exists in other departments it should have been possible, before now, to have made proposals for that long-range legislation which was then foreshadowed, but we have no desire to prevent the Second Reading of the Bill before the House.

11.38 a.m.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

My Lords, I am fully aware that at this time of day it would be idle to lament over the fact that the supply of milk and of dairy products generally is conducted under purely artificial conditions, or to shed a tear over the days—the old days which we all remember—when milk, cheese and butter were articles of ordinary consumption, to be bought and sold on the ordinary principles of competition, Therefore we have to consider the proposals of this Bill as being in a sense forced on His Majesty's Government. How far it is possible to proceed within a reasonable space of time to implement the intentions which the noble Earl stated in general terms to be in the mind of the Government, and how far this is to be regarded as a purely interim measure, is, perhaps, a matter of some doubt. I think in view of the general stress of legislation we cannot anticipate any very early further step in advance on the lines which have been indicated.

The intentions of His Majesty's Government in producing this measure have been clearly stated—so far as possible to increase the consumption of milk at a reasonable price, and to ensure, so far as possible, that that milk shall be pure and free from the possibilities of disease. I am not quite sure how far the statement that fell from the noble Lord, Lord Snell, that there has been a general uneasiness with regard to the purity of milk which has distinctly limited its use, can be supported by evidence. There is no doubt that the fear of tubercular disease caused by milk has been widespread, and I think in some cases it has been exaggerated almost to the point of believing that so long as any cattle are tubercular the milk supply of the country is in danger. Now, that is an undoubted exaggeration because, as everybody knows, cattle may suffer from quite severe tubercular lesions without in any way affecting the purity of the milk which they give. At the same time, of course, we all agree that everything that can be done in reason to stamp out the appalling tubercular disease which, as we know, affects so many animals as well as human beings, ought to be encouraged in every possible way.

I am glad to notice one feature in the Bill, that although every respect is properly paid to accredited milk, yet that is not to be considered as the only milk in respect of which assistance can be given from public sources. As many of your Lordships know, great expense has been caused by the alterations to buildings in various forms in order to obtain a certificate for accredited milk. That has been in itself desirable, though it is obvious that it must, in the long run, whether the farm be private property or public property, add something to the cost of production. But it is undoubtedly true that a great deal of milk can be produced under reasonable conditions, and absolutely good milk for general consumption, in holdings which have not been able, in the technical sense, to obtain the accredited certificate. One point is, I think, worth mentioning—that quite apart from the permanent improvement required to obtain the accredited certificate, quite as much attention has to be paid to the manner and conditions in which' the actual milking is carried on, which for the purity of the milk is just as important as the provisions for light and cubic space, as demanded by the rules.

Perhaps I may be allowed, as coming from a part of the world where cheese is a main product, to express my satisfaction at the encouragement which the measure gives to farmhouse cheese-making. It is well known that in cheese-making so much depends upon the individual skill of the person who works in the dairy, and that generally speaking a finer product can be obtained in this way than can possibly be obtained by a cheese factory. Then, as regards the increased consumption of milk, I am not sure that it is always realised that milk, taken alone, is not regarded by everybody, for either children or grown-up people, as a really palatable form of nourishment. We notice the vastly greater percentage of milk which is used in some foreign countries as compared with Great Britain. Well, I do not know whether any in- formation is obtainable as to how far that consumption represents liquid milk drunk undiluted or unchanged, or how far it represents consumption in other forms. I have always felt that the countries are greatly to be envied in which the consumption of coffee and milk, either in the morning or in the afternoon, takes the place of the consumption of strong tea, which I believe to be an extremely unhealthy beverage. I think that any encouragement that can be given, by example or precept, to a larger consumption of milk in this way would be of distinct advantage to the country.

And I think we must all feel that the provision which will increase, as we hope, the consumption of milk in schools and its consumption by nursing mothers is an act of wise liberality on the part of His Majesty's Government, and I hope that a very large increase in the consumption in both these directions may be the result of this measure. I have nothing more to add, and I do not know whether it is likely that in the Committee stage some of the same Amendments which were moved in another place will be moved from the Front Opposition Bench. I am rather inclined to hope not, from what fell from the noble Lord, not merely because time presses, but because he regards this as a measure which will have to be dealt with in other details later on. In these circumstances, I hope and believe that the Bill will pass your Lordships' House in much the form in which it has been brought in for Second Reading.

11.50 a.m.

LORD LUKE

My Lords, I have no doubt that the milk control schemes have served a very useful purpose, but there is a small minority who have suffered severely from them. I refer to the hospitals. The cost of milk at the higher price they pay to-day as compared with 1932–33—the year before the milk control came into being—means about £115,000 more expense per annum to them. That is taking the average price per gallon paid in 1932 against that in 1939, and is only based on the average price for 1932; but hospitals used often to get special terms from friendly local suppliers of milk. This is a very serious matter for such hard-pressed institutions as voluntary hospitals. A hospital of 500 beds requires at least 100 gallons of milk a day. At present prices, one-quarter of the total cost of hospital provisions is for milk. The quantity of milk supplied to the hospitals is seven million gallons per annum out of a total of eleven hundred million gallons—under a 150th part of the whole milk scheme. No doubt more milk would be consumed if the price to the hospitals was lower.

It is the Minister or the Milk Board who can best suggest the means of giving justice to the hospitals in this matter. A 150th part is a very small section of the scheme, but a gesture of this kind at this time would be much appreciated by the committees and executive officers of these great homes for the sick poor. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the large quantity of milk sold at much under the hospital price to those who manufacture cheese and butter in this country—useful commodities no doubt, but they can be bought more cheaply from New Zealand. In fact, at the present moment, this country can get extra butter for nothing from New Zealand because that Dominion owes our investors a great deal of money and if we do not take her dairy products for interest on our capital New Zealand will not be able to pay us. The British Hospitals Association put this dear milk matter to the Ministry two years ago, but the case is more urgent to-day and the present Minister of Agriculture may not have heard of it. It is the high price charged to the hospitals that helps the milk schemers to charge the low price to the butter makers.

I am not asking for milk for the hospitals at the low price that butter manufacturers pay, but I am asking that the cost should at least be reduced to the price paid by them before milk control in 1932—that they should be saved this extra £115,000 per annum they now pay. Hospitals are not business concerns—they cannot raise their prices to their patients. Every penny of that £115,000 extra cost has to be obtained from the threepences a week that are paid by working men and the contributions of generous subscribers. I trust the Ministry and the Milk Controllers will arrange for some amendment to this Bill in Committee that will put this injustice right. May I express the hope with regard to the matter that has been discussed here to-day—that of the safety of milk—that it will not be headlined in the Press? Nothing has done more harm to the policy of those who are endeavouring to increase the consumption of milk than that particular report when it gets headlined and large space in the Press.

11.55 a.m.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

My Lords, those of your Lordships who have participated in the debate on this Bill have unanimously voiced the view that if the future prosperity of the milk industry is to be secured it is necessary that the consumption of liquid milk should be increased. That is not only for the benefit of those who produce the milk but also for the benefit of those who consume it. Further, it is urged that if that objective is to be attained, it is necessary that the milk supplied should be of a higher quality inasmuch as it is free from disease and is clean. Perhaps it would be of interest to your Lordships if I gave you some figures showing the improvement that has so far been effected. I recognise, in submitting these figures, that they are only of a provisional character inasmuch as the schemes launched are still in progress.

The percentage of quality milk that is put on the market to-day—that is accredited milk and T.T. milk—is now 40 per cent. of the total sold. The total amount of milk sold in the year 1937–8 for England and Wales was 1,063,000 gallons. As I attempted to say in moving the Second Reading, we are tackling this problem on two fronts—one with the object of obtaining better herds, free from tuberculosis, and the other with the object of getting cleaner milk. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, referred in some most interesting remarks to the premiums paid for the attestation of herds. It may be of interest to the House if I say that the total premiums payable on milk from attested herds sold by wholesale are as follows: Since October 1, for tuberculin-tested milk from attested herds, 3¼d. a gallon has been paid; for accredited milk from attested herds, the same figure; and for ordinary milk from attested herds, 2d. per gallon. The assistance given to quality milk sold by wholesale which is not from attested herds has been, since October 1, 1938, when the Boards adopted the proposals set out in the White Paper, as follows: For tuberculin-tested milk, 2¼d. per gallon and for accredited milk, 1¼d.

Your Lordships will see that encouragement is given to the milk producer either to produce milk of cleaner character or to get his herds free from the disease of tuberculosis, or to combine both these objects by coming under the attestation scheme and also getting a certificate either for T.T. milk or accredited milk. The persons who at present sell milk from attested herds are producing over 50,000,000 gallons per year. Your Lordships will see that great progress is being made in this direction. I agree that if this Bill were to be considered as a long-term measure it would be neither a complete nor satisfactory solution of the problems that confront the milk industry.

My noble friend Lord Luke has referred to the question of milk for hospitals, and a similar point was put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Cork, in a recent debate which my noble friend the President of the Board of Education said he would look into. My noble friend Lord Luke has said that this question may not have come to the knowledge of the present Minister of Agriculture. I should like to assure him that the Minister is well aware of the case enunciated by the hospitals, and I myself have been present on occasions when the view as expressed by the noble Lord has been put forward. Perhaps I may be allowed in those circumstances to deal with one or two aspects that my noble friend has raised. He has informed your Lordships' House that the increased cost to hospitals in the purchase of milk has been £115,000 as compared with the figure paid in 1932.

On previous occasions when representations were made it was pointed out that as far as the hospitals are concerned they are quite obviously large consumers of milk and are entitled to expect—as it is understood that they do in fact obtain—special terms for the purchase of liquid milk for human consumption. But it would appear that there is no more justification for the provision of milk at specially cheap rates with Exchequer assistance to hospitals than for such other essential requirements of hospitals as gas, coal, electricity, bedding and medicine. The fact that hospitals are doing beneficent work is surely not a reason why producers of milk should give preferential treatment to the extent of selling milk to the hospitals at an unremunerative level. I understand that the Milk Marketing Board have already granted such concessions as they usefully can, and it seems that in this instance compulsory beneficence should be no more required from the milk producers of this country than from any other section of the community. If hospitals are to obtain milk at prices below those at which other persons can buy it, the matter would appear to be one for consideration on social grounds, and I am sure that my noble friend in putting forward the case of the hospitals does not mean to imply that milk producers, or those engaged in the distributive side, should be put under a severe loss by selling at a special figure to these institutions.

The noble Lord, Lord Luke, has quoted the figure that was paid in 1932, but he will know that at that date the condition of the milk industry was such, owing to cutting both in the wholesale and retail prices, that the industry was as near bankruptcy as it has ever been, and had it not been for the adoption of the agricultural marketing schemes it would be true to say that a large number of the 150,000 persons engaged in the production of milk would have gone out of business. Therefore this is a question that cannot be solved merely by negotiation between those who represent the milk producers on the Milk Marketing Board and the hospitals. It is a matter which must surely he considered, as I said, on social grounds, and although that may suggest the need for a review of the maintenance and equipment of hospitals, that should be considered not only having regard to the expenses incurred in the cost of obtaining milk but also expenses incurred in the provision of other necessities for hospital maintenance.

My noble friend Lord Onslow, together with Lord Snell, has referred to the statement made by Lord Halifax in April, 1937, with regard to the Private Bills which were presented by the Corporations of Poole and Glasgow. As regards the question of pasteurisation, provisions on this subject are clearly unsuitable for a short-term Bill of the kind which is now before your Lordships' House. Further, the question is one which concerns more than one Department, and I regret that I cannot give any statement of the Government's view on the general question. But with regard to the particular question to which my noble friend has referred, I can at present only say that as far as local authorities are concerned it is open to them to promote Private Bills containing pasteurisation provisions, and that if they do so the Government for their part will consider these provisions on their merits. I am glad that those who have participated in this debate have given a welcome to the provisions of this Bill, and I trust that pending consideration of further policy and of the views of all sections of the milk industry therein and up to the time that any new proposals are put forward for a another measure, the limited provisions of this Bill will have gone some way to increase the consumption of liquid milk and to obtain a better quality and standard of milk consumed.

12.8 p.m.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, by leave of the House may I ask my noble friend a question to get this point cleared up? He said, if I do not misquote him, that if local authorities were to bring forward proposals for pasteurisation such as those proposed by the Bill of the Glasgow Corporation the Government would consider them on their merits. Does that mean any alteration of what my noble friend Lord Halifax said nearly three years ago? It was a definite discouragement to local authorities to proceed by Private Bill, and for obvious reasons. Supposing, for instance, any local authority were to bring in that part of the dropped Milk Bill which relates to pasteurisation, would the Government say it was undesirable that it should be proceeded with or not?

One reason why my noble friend Lord Halifax said, and very properly and rightly said, that the Government at that time discouraged local proposals was that those proposals would go to a Committee of your Lordships' House, and would be examined by that Committee as a Local Bill, and that would entail probably great expense to the local authority without possibly producing any conclusive results. I think everybody agreed with that. Supposing for the sake of argument the proposals made in the dropped Bill were introduced, have the proceedings which were foreshadowed three years ago gone so far as to enable the Government to express an opinion in regard to pasteurisation? I do not want to press the point, but I think my noble friend will see that it will possibly come into the minds of local authorities to bring the matter forward in Private Bills next Session, and it would be desirable that they should have some guidance because it would save them trouble.

12.11 p.m.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

My Lords, the statement I made in regard to the point raised necessarily differs from that made by my noble friend Viscount Halifax in April, 1937, because at that time the long-term measures for the milk industry were in process of formulation. Your Lordships will recall that that Bill was withdrawn from another place owing to the acute controversy that arose concerning it. Therefore there is not at present before Parliament any provisions under the head of pasteurisation. I can only repeat to my noble friend that if local authorities wish to promote Bills incorporating pasteurisation proposals they will be considered by the Government on their merits.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.