PHARMACY AND MEDICINES BILL.

HL Deb 05 August 1941 vol 119 cc1015-54

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I state shortly the course which I should propose be taken in Committee. The interval which it was suggested we should secure between the Second Reading of the Bill and the Committee stage to-day has been made good use of, and the Government are indebted to my noble friend Viscount Plumer and those with whom he is acting for attending conferences, as a result of which I trust that most at any rate of the difficulties which suggested themselves at an earlier stage have been removed.

The Amendments which I myself have to move on behalf of the Government fall into two classes. In the first place there are some very technical Amendments relating to Clause I of the Bill, which really deals with a different subject matter, the subject matter of poisons. I doubt whether your Lordships would wish to have any prolonged explanation of those. I do not think the Amendments are resisted in any quarter and they are the result of careful revision of this clause by the Home Office, which is responsible for that branch of the matter. When we come to Clause 5 and onwards we reach more debatable ground. I hope it will be found that the Amendments which the Government are prepared to move will fairly meet certain difficulties which presented themselves to the minds of those interested in herbal remedies. It may be that in some places in the Bill the language was not of the clearest, and we are very glad to make it clearer and thereby to relieve the apprehensions of the Herbalists' Society.

The comment was made that certain clauses of the Bill—Clauses 8 and 9—would authorise proceedings without the previous authority of a Law Officer and in that respect contrasted with that requirement in earlier clauses. We have a proposal to make which we hope will meet that situation in Clauses 8 and 9. I hope therefore we shall find it possible to get through the Committee stage without consuming a great deal of time, and the Government will be very happy if at the end of it, although we cannot hope to satisfy everybody, it is realised in all quarters that the Government have really tried to meet these difficulties in a perfectly fair and candid spirit.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISCOUNT PLUMER

My Lords, we have been into these matters, as the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said, and I thank the Government for being so considerate in meeting us as far as possible. There only remain one or two minor points to be cleared up, which I believe, if I may put them in Committee, your Lordships will agree to. They are questions which I am sure the noble and learned Viscount can explain, as they are merely questions of drafting.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Alternative conditions to be complied with by authorised sellers of poisons.

1.—(1) Where a business comprising the retail sale of drugs is being carried on, so far as it concerns the retail sale of drugs, at two or more sets of premises, it shall not be necessary, in order that the person carrying on the business may be an authorised seller of poisons, to comply with the conditions requiring the business to be under the personal control of a registered pharmacist at any of those sets of premises where no poisons included in Part I of the Poisons List are sold, if the following conditions are complied with in lieu thereof—

(d) prescriptions must not be received at the premises, and drugs compounded elsewhere than at the premises for the use of a particular person must not be distributed at the premises or despatched therefrom;

(7) Where two or more separate parts of a single set of premises, at which a business which comprises the retail sale of drugs is carried on, are used for the retail sale of drugs, then, for the purposes of this section and of the principal Act, each of the separate parts so used shall be treated as being a separate set of premises.

(8) In subsection (1) of Section twenty-one of the principal Act, (which requires a local authority to keep a list of persons who, not being entitled to sell poisons included in Part I of the Poisons List, are to be entitled to sell poisons included in Part II of that List), the words "not being entitled to sell poisons included in Part I of the Poisons List" shall be repealed.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in paragraph (d) of subsection (1), after "drugs," to insert "dispensed or." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a clause which, as I said just now, is dealing with quite a different subject matter, a most technical subject matter, but a subject matter which I think is entirely uncontroversial. The subject is poisons, which is a topic within the general scope of the Home Office. These Amendments are all put down at the suggestion of the Home Office in order that the resulting situation may be quite satisfactory. The first Amendment is little more than drafting. In another place there was a change made in this part of the Bill. I think it was assumed that the word "compounded" would be wide enough to cover also the word "dispensed." I am advised that that is not necessarily so and I therefore desire to insert the words "dispensed or."

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 27, after ("drugs") insert ("dispensed or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out subsection (7). The noble and learned Viscount said: The effect of this Amendment and several following the one which is to leave out subsection (7), is to substitute the first new clause for subsection (8) of Clause I and the second new clause for subsection (7) of Clause 1. This is, in part, a rearrangement for purposes of greater convenience and easier reading, and, in part, a slight modification. I doubt if your Lordships would desire to have a detailed explanation. I assure your Lordships that there is nothing controversial in this.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 15, leave out subsection (7).—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out subsection (8). The noble and learned Viscount said: This is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 21, leave out subsection (8).—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert after Clause 1:

Extension of local authorities list.

—(1) On the application of an authorised seller of poisons who wishes to sell at any premises poisons included in Part II of the Poisons List, but neither poisons included in Part I of that list nor drugs, the local authority for the area in which the premises are situated shall enter his name in the list kept by them under Section twenty-one of the principal Act as a person entitled, subject to the provisions of that Act, to sell on those premises poisons included in the said Part II:

Provided that the local authority may refuse to enter in, or may remove from, the list the name of any person who fails to pay the fees prescribed by rules or who in the opinion of the authority is, for any sufficient reason relating either to him personally or to his premises, not fit to be on the list.

(2) The provisions of subsections (2) to (7) of the said Section twenty-one (which relate to appeals from the decision of a local authority to refuse to enter or to remove a name from the list and other incidental matters) shall apply for the purpose of the foregoing provisions of this section as they apply for the purposes of that section.

(3) Where any premises of an authorised seller of poisons are entered in a local authority's list by virtue of this section, it shall be the duty of the authority under subsection (5) of Section twenty-five of the principal Act, and not the duty of the Society under subsection (1) of that section, to take all reasonable steps to secure compliance by him, as respects those premises, with the provisions of Part II of the principal Act and of the rules made thereunder so far as those provisions relate to poisons included in Part II of the Poisons List; and the provisions of subsections (5) to (10) of that section relating to inspectors shall apply accordingly."

The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the new clause which it was desired to substitute and which expresses the same general idea in a better form. I have gone through it and I think I should not be justified in detaining your Lordships about it. It provides for an extension of the; local authorities' lists, that is to say of the authorised sellers of poisons who wish to sell at any premises poisons included in Part II of the Poisons List. Broadly speaking, one may say that Part II contains poisons not so dangerous as Part I. This is really machinery for getting proper control over those vendors of poisons in Number II category. I ask your Lordships to accept this in place of what was originally in Clause 1.

Amendment moved— Page 3 line 44, to insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert the following new clause:

Amendment as to separate sets of premises.

"Where a separate or distinct part or two or more separate or distinct parts of any premises at which a business which comprises the retail sale of drugs is carried on is or arc used for the retail sale of drugs then for the purposes of this Act and the principal Act that part or each of those parts as the case may be shall be treated as being a separate set of premises."

The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a new clause which, I think, will be understood by reading it. There is a complication because you may have an individual who has two sets of premises in an area, at one of which there is a retail sale of drugs carried on but at the other there may not be such a trade. It is consequently necessary to make this provision for the proper separation and treatment of the two premises.

Amendment moved— Page 3 line 44 at end insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Powers of Statutory Committee over bodies corporate.

(2) Subsection (2) of Section fourteen of the principal Act (which provides that directions given by the Statutory Committee shall not take effect for three months) shall not apply to directions given under the said subsection (3) as respects a body corporate which is not an authorised seller of poisons.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), after "not," where that word occurs for the last time, to insert "at the time when the directions are given." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is as your Lordships see a proposal to insert on page 5, line 29, "at the time when the directions are given." The principal Act which is the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, makes provision that the Statutory Committee which supervise these matters, when they make a direction, make one which does not take effect until three months after notice is given to the person to whom it relates. There are other limitations also. I think it is mechanically correct to provide that there should be an insertion of these words, and the result will be, in the case of a direction disqualifying a body corporate which is not an authorised seller, that the notice will take effect immediately. There is no reason in such cases for granting three months' grace and accordingly the provision will be "at the time when the directions are given."

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 29, after ("not") insert ("at the time when the directions are given.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 4, to insert:

Commencement of ss. 2, 3 and 4.

"The last three preceding sections shall come into operation on such date as His Majesty may by Order in Council appoint."

The noble and learned Viscount said: It has been pointed out that the authority, the jurisdiction, of the Advisory Committee cannot be exercised until new rules of procedure have been made. They are made, I think, by the Privy Council. It is therefore necessary to insert a provision of this sort to determine the date on which the new rules will be operative.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 44, at end insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to. Clause 7 [Provisions as to offences under two preceding sections]:

VISCOUNT PLUMER had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out subsection (4). The noble Viscount said: This Amendment relates to the consent of the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General for prosecutions for offences against Clauses 6 and 7. The Amendment is consequential on the new clause on the Order Paper to be moved after Clause II, which is intended to mention all the clauses in the Bill in respect of which consent is required. As the subject of consent, however, is dealt with in an Amendment to be moved by the Lord Chancellor to Clause 10, it will probably be more convenient to discuss the matter then, and accordingly I do not move this Amendment.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8:

Disclosure of composition of medicines.

8.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, no person shall—

1. (a) sell by retail any article consisting of or comprising a substance recommended as a medicine; or,
2. (b) supply any such article as a sample for the purpose of inducing persons to buy by retail the substance of which it consists or which it comprises

unless there is written so as to be clearly legible on the article or a label affixed thereto, or, if the article is sold or supplied as aforesaid in a container, on the container or a label affixed thereto or, if the article is sold or supplied as aforesaid in more than one container, on the inner container or a label affixed thereto—

1. (i) the appropriate designation of the sub stance so recommended or of each of the active constituents thereof; and
1022
2. (ii) in a case where the appropriate designation of each of the active constituents is written as aforesaid, the appropriate quantitative particulars of the constituents:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in paragraph (i) of subsection (1), after "thereof," to insert "or of each of the ingredients of which it has been compounded." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is, I think, the first matter on which some dubiety was expressed in our Second Reading debate. I agree that Clause 8 is in its nature rather difficult to construe. As the clause is printed in the Bill it provides, as your Lordships see, that the article recommended as a medicine must be labelled and it must be labelled in this way: The label affixed thereto must show the appropriate designation of the substance so recommended or of each of the active constituents thereof. I think the anxiety which was expressed, more particularly on behalf of the herbalists, was that this might be understood to mean that they had to state what were the chemical constituents in the bottle, notwithstanding that there might be—as no doubt in many cases there would be—quite serious chemical changes after the contents had been put together. Whether that is so or not, that would be putting on the herbalists too severe a burden, and I therefore propose to insert "or"—not "and" but "or"—"of each of the ingredients of which it has been compounded."

To take a simple illustration, if the bottle has been filled with dandelion root it is enough to say on the bottle that the contents have been made of dandelion root, and it is not necessary to give the conceivably rather complicated and technical information as to what is the result of the chemical changes which have taken place because dandelion root has been combined with something else. That, I think, was the point which was a matter of anxiety to my noble friend Lord Plumer, and to those whom he has so ably represented here. I hope he will feel that by inserting those words we have in a very genuine sense met the anxiety which I know that some people entertain.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 17, after ("thereof") insert ("or of each of the ingredients of which it has been compounded").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 19, after ("constituents") insert ("or the ingredients").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 20, after ("constituents") insert ("or ingredients").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to

VISCOUNT PLUMER had an Amendment on the Paper, at the end of paragraph (ii) of subsection (1), to insert "though not necessarily the chemical analysis of those constituents or of any of them." The noble Viscount said: This is only following up what was said by the noble and learned Lord Chancellor. Our legal advisers did not feel that the wording was perfectly clear, and I therefore put down this Amendment, although after the explanation given by the noble and earned Viscount I do not think it is necessary; I think I am right in saying that what he has said covers this point. If he agrees, I shall not move this Amendment.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I should like to say a word on the question of drafting; there is a matter here which should perhaps be considered by the noble and learned Lord Chancellor. When you have added the words "or the ingredients" after the word "constituents" in lines 19 and 20, you may have this difficulty, that an ingredient may also be a constituent. I am not myself sure that the adding of the reference to "ingredients" will show that it is not necessary to give the quantitative particulars of the ingredients. The appropriate quantitative particulars of the constituents have to be given, and an ingredient is a constituent. I think that as a matter of drafting you have not sufficiently separated the ingredients from the constituents to show that for the purposes of this clause an ingredient is not a constituent. It is only a matter of drafting, because there is no doubt as to what is meant by the clause; but I think it is a matter which might be considered on the Report stage and, if any words are necessary, I think that they should be inserted.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Perhaps I may be allowed to say, in reply to my noble and learned friend, that I think it is really essential that we should deal with this Bill to-day, and therefore any observations that he makes must be addressed to the present time. A very great deal of care has, to my knowledge, been taken on this subject. Our legal authorities have examined it closely, and I understand that it has been examined by the herbalists with at least equal care and, for what it may be worth, they do not think that the words lead to any obscurity. Let me read the words as they would stand. The label is to contain: in a case where the appropriate designation of each of the active constituents or the ingredients is written as aforesaid the appropriate quantitative particulars of the constituents or ingredients. I submit to my noble and learned friend that when in paragraph (i) you have an actual alternative between stating active constituents and ingredients, and when that is followed by paragraph (ii), which speaks of the case where "the appropriate designation of each of the active constituents is written as aforesaid," it is rather difficult to construe the second of those paragraphs as though a constituent were the same thing as an ingredient.

I conceive that an ingredient is something which is put into the whole for the purpose of animating it. You may remember Sydney Smith's lines— Let onion atoms lurk within the bowl And scarce suspected, animate the whole. That, in my view, is an ingredient. The constituents—well, in this House we do not consider constituents very much, but the constituents of such a mixture I would conceive to be the things which are ascertained to be in it upon analysis.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I think that applies to an ingredient. I am not satisfied at all that this is clear.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

When it comes to discussing how words should be construed there is often a difficulty, but we have inserted these other words with no idea of misleading the herbalists. If we do meet with a difficulty, and if we find hereafter that the words do not produce the results desired, it may very well be that this provision will have to be revised; but I hope that my noble and learned friend will not feel it necessary to raise the matter on the Report stage, because I hardly think that we could deal with it further, unless it is the general view of the House that the efforts of the Government draftsmen and of the experts at the Ministry of Health and of the herbalists have in this respect been quite fruitless.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I understand we are now engaged in discussing the Amendment of my noble friend which has been put on the Table.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The noble Viscount has withdrawn his Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I only rose to ask whether the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that my noble friend was right when "he said he understood that the Lord Chancellor's words covered his difficulty. If that is so, we need not spend any more time over that Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am obliged to the noble Marquess. The words "though not necessarily the chemical analysis of those constituents or of any of them" in my view are quite unnecessary, because the effect of the previous Amendment is really to secure that result.

VISCOUNT PLUMER

After the explanation which has been given I shall not move my Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendments to the clause are consequential.

Amendments moved— Page 8, line 26, leave out ("or constituent") and insert ("constituent 0r ingredient"). Page 8, line 27, leave out ("or constituent") and insert ("constituent or ingredient"). Page 8, line 33, leave out ("or constituent") and insert ("constituent or ingredient"). Page 8, line 40, leave out ("or constituent") and insert ("constituent or ingredient"). Page 8, line 43, leave out ("or constituent") and insert ("constituent or ingredient"). Page 9, line 2, after ("constituents") insert ("or the ingredients"). Page 9, line 5, after ("constituents") insert ("or ingredients"). Page 9, line 6, after ("constituents") insert ("or ingredients"). Page 9, line 12, after ("constituents") insert ("or ingredients").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question Amendments agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 8, as amended, shall be agreed to?

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Before we leave Clause 8, may I raise a point which I do not think has been hitherto referred to? I do not expect we can deal with it now, but I would like to ask the Lord Chancellor if he would give it consideration. Clause 8 refers to substances recommended as medicine. I am rather afraid that by the definition clause that is limited to medicines for human beings. I would have liked to have seen medicines for horses—all veterinary medicines—included. I understand a great deal of quackery goes on and rubbishy stuff is sold to farmers at prices greatly exceeding its worth. It would have been a good thing if horses could have had the same protection as your Lordships.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think the noble Lord for a moment must be content with dealing with human beings, because in page 13, line 30, as he has observed, the substance recommended as a medicine, at any rate when an advertisement is involved, is described as being expressed in terms "which are calculated to lead to the use of the substance for the prevention or treatment of any ailment, infirmity or injury affecting the human body."

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

Restriction of sale of medicines by unauthorised persons.

9.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, no person shall sell by retail any article consisting of or comprising a substance recommended as a medicine unless he is—

1. (a) a registered medical practitioner or a registered dentist; or
2. (b) an authorised seller of poisons; or
3. (c) a person not being a registered medical practitioner or a registered dentist or an authorised seller of poisons, but being a person who—

1. (i) has served a regular apprenticeship to a registered pharmacist, or to a body corporate authorised to sell poisons by virtue of Section nine of the principal Act; and
2. (ii) is at the date of the passing of this Act carrying on on his own account a business which comprises the retail sale of drugs.

(4) It shall be a defence for a person charged with selling an article in contravention of subsection (I) or subsection (2) of this section to prove that the sale was effected at a shop, and that the article consisted wholly either—

1. (a) of a substance produced by drying, crushing, or comminuting (but not subjecting to any other process) a plant or plants or any part thereof or of a mixture the sole ingredients whereof are two or more such substances or of a mixture the sole ingredients whereof are one or more of such substances and water; or
2. (b) of a natural mineral water, or an artificial imitation thereof.

(5) It shall also be a defence for a person charged with selling an article in contravention of subsection (I) or subsection (2) of this section to prove that the sale was effected at a shop, and that the article was sold under a proprietary designation and either—

1. (a) that the substance recommended as a medicine which the article consisted of or comprised was not described in any of the monographs contained in the edition of the British Pharmacopoeia or British Pharmaceutical Codex which was last published before the date of the passing of this Act or the date on which the substance was first sold by retail under the proprietary designation, whichever date is the later; or

VISCOUNT PLUMER moved to insert in subsection (1): Provided that nothing in this section contained shall prohibit a person who carries on a legitimate practice of herbalism and the sale of herbal preparations from selling herbal pre-parations which are medicines within the meaning of this Act. The noble Viscount said: This Amendment was tabled because it follows the words used by the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister in giving their assurances in another place. If it is accepted the subsequent Amendments on Clause 9 will not be required. We should prefer this Amendment because it expresses the intention that our business is not to be interfered with, but our discussions with the advisers of the Minister have shown that in their view the Amendment would have a much wider application than we intend.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 39, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Plumer.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I must ask my noble friend to accept my assurance that this Amendment is much too wide. I really do not know myself how you would construe the words "a person who carries on a legitimate practice of herbalism." Moreover, I can imagine its meaning is that herbalists and herbalists alone are to have the right to sell all medicines whose active constituents are produced wholly from plants. I speak subject to correction, but I fancy a very large number of chemical substances are derived from plants, and, without professing to more scientific knowledge than I have, I am advised, and I am myself convinced, that this would be much too wide a clause. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will be good enough to withdraw his Amendment. Some more detailed suggestions which I think he has to make will be separately considered.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT PLUMER had given Notice of two Amendments in paragraph (a) of subsection (4)—namely, to leave out "but not subjecting to" and insert "macerating, infusing, boiling, decocting, distilling, pressing, expressing and"; and, after "water," to insert "with or without the addition as preservatives of glycerine, alcohol, esters of parahydroxy benzoic acid, or such other preservative as the Minister of Health may sanction". The noble Viscount said: These are Amendments of subsection (4) and they describe the processes which are commonly used in the preparation of herbal medicines, but which are not mentioned in the Bill. It is an alternative to the Amendment at page 9, line 39. The Minister of Health has said it is not intended by the Bill to stop the legitimate business of the herbalist and he has pointed to subsection (4) as the protection provided for the herbalist. The subsection was amended in another place to meet the herbalist's objection, but the Amendments do not go far enough.

If the processes are to be specified in the clause they ought to include many liquid processes which are commonly used by herbalists. It is idle to say that because the clause does not mention either solid or liquid processes, liquid processes would be allowed. What the clause does is to name the processes which may be used and not the substances which are produced. The three processes named and permitted are "drying, crushing and comminuting." These are dry processes and they produce dry substances. There is nothing in the clause as it stands to permit the use of a liquid process which is necessary for the production of many tinctures, essences and oils commonly used by the herbalist, and sold by him in his shop. We have therefore specified in the Amendment the ordinary liquid processes which are in use.

Amendment moved— Page lo, line 24, leave out ("but not subjecting to") and insert ("macerating, infusing, boiling, decocting, distilling, pressing, expressing and").—(Viscount Plumer.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Some of the considerations I mentioned just now apply to this proposal also, and I regret that I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment. The object of subsection (4) (a), which is not the only provision of advantage to herbalists, is to give some protection primarily to the country herbalist. Many of us know such a shop in a small town or village which is engaged in producing comparatively simple remedies based, it may be, on tradition or experience. Hence the provision in the Bill, a substance produced by drying, crushing or comminuting … or of a mixture the sole ingredients whereof are one or more of such substances and water. I should tell the House that I fell into error on the Second Reading, when I happened to say, in referring to some legal opinions which were quoted, that I thought their language was severe, and added that the Attorney-General had expounded some portions of the Bill. I was in error about that, and I wish to apologise to the House. I thought it was so; but, be that as it may, the clause is a clause of value, as your Lordships will see, although it is not the whole protection. If the herbalist chooses to produce his medicine as a proprietary medicine, and comes within the provisions of subsection (5), a very wide measure of protection is afforded to him there.

As regards this Amendment, a long list of additional processes is here suggested, the first of which is macerating. I am not quite sure that I know what that means. I imagine it means making things soft by stewing or something of the kind; but there is no merit in adding all these different words, "infusing, boiling, decocting, distilling, pressing, expressing," because when we come to the end of the catalogue there are the words "any other process." That is giving a great deal more latitude than ought to be given. If that were right, especially with the addition of preservatives, which is suggested next, then there would be a wholly exceptional position created for those who take advantage of the clause. I give this example, which I am told is chemically accurate. Take quinine salts. They begin from cinchona bark, which is no doubt a vegetable; it is part of a plant. From that it is possible to produce quinine. Having produced quinine, then by a series of other processes you can produce a number of quinine compounds which are used for the treatment of various ailments, and in the end you would get the production of an unlimited number of medicines whose efficacy depends on their chemical constituents produced under the alleged shelter of dealing with herbs and with herbal extractions. That, I am quite certain, is not the view which would be generally accepted in this House, and I must therefore ask my noble friend, though with much regret, to forgive me for saying that his Amendment must be resisted.

It really does proceed, as I said before, from an assumption which I believe to be unfounded, that there is some sort of sharp contrast in the world of Nature between vegetable products and chemical products. There is no such contrast. Vegetable products in themselves contain some of the most complicated chemical formulas. Therefore, if this assumption is going to give an unlimited licence to this class of product, without regard to the substance produced, it is necessary to resist the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am not quite sure what the intention of the Government really is, but I confess I am not fully reassured by the speech which the noble and learned Viscount has just delivered. He opposes these words. If the clause as it is drawn did not contain any directions, did not mention certain methods of production, why, then, there might be a great deal in what my noble and learned friend has said. But what is so striking in the clause as drawn is that certain things are mentioned which the herbalists say are not sufficiently inclusive. Is that so or is it not? If they are not sufficiently inclusive, then we ought to add the necessary words or, if the other words are not necessary, why in the drafting of the Bill were any words inserted? It appears to be a matter of ordinary interpretation, with which we are familiar, that the very fact that certain words are introduced in the Bill as it stands excludes everything else. Therefore it would follow, as a matter of construction, that all the words which my noble and gallant friend wants to insert are, ipso, facto, excluded by the Bill as drawn. That seems to be a very strong measure, very difficult to defend.

If no process had been mentioned, my noble friend might have taken his chance, if I may use the words, but as certain processes are inserted, it seems to follow that others are excluded. I am not a lawyer, I need not tell your Lordships—very far from it. I wish I were; but I should have thought that, by the ordinary rules of construction, every other process is excluded, and therefore all these points which my noble friend has mentioned, on behalf of the herbalists, are excluded. Henceforth it would not be possible for anybody engaged in herbalism to use any of these processes which my noble friend has mentioned. They would not be allowed to "macerate, infuse, boil, decoct, distil" or use any other process in producing their remedies. I am sure the noble and learned Lord Chancellor is fifty times better than I am at constructing the meaning of a Statute, but I should like him to explain to the House how we are to get out of that difficulty. It may be that the noble and learned Viscount intends, in an Amendment in the later clauses of the Bill, to use such language that all these things are unnecessary, that the herbalists are protected without these particular precautions but, if not, I must say I feel a little dissatisfied with the answer that the Lord Chancellor has given.

LORD HORDER

I should like to say a word on this Amendment. We are, of course, well aware of the transparent honesty of the noble Marquess. I am bound to say that there is a little simplicity also which on this occasion, perhaps, is not helpful to your. Lordships. I suggested last week, speaking on this Bill, that the rock which our friends the herbalists were bound to strike was the question of disclosure and, in particular, the question of quantitative disclosure. I was sympathetic, I said, towards that body of our fellow citizens who wished to take their medicines from, or through the means of, a complicated mixture of ingredients prepared in a complicated fashion. If and when certain mystic signs are made over preparations of that kind, I suggest that belief in the efficacy of the remedy is not lessened.

Your Lordships have given our friends the herbalists a certain amount of what they have asked for by passing the Amendment to insert the phrase "or of each of the ingredients of which it has been compounded." Now they are asking that certain processes shall be permissible in preparing those ingredients which are calculated, so I believe—and I imagine His Majesty's Government have been duly advised by expert chemists—inevitably to result in so changing and confusing the ingredients as not to make it possible to state what finally are the constituents. I suggest that this is an effort to sidetrack one of the two main principles that the Bill establishes, and, having satisfied myself that the Bill does establish these two principles, I heartily supported it, but I must contest this Amendment very strongly. I think our friends the herbalists are in the same dilemma that the young lady found herself in when charged with driving her car to the common danger. She had collided with another motorist, and the magistrate was evidently patient and inclined to be sympathetic. He asked her: "But why did you not make some sign to let the other motorist know what you were proposing to do?" She shook her head and said: "I am sorry sir, there is no sign for what I was proposing to do." I cannot help feeling that this is the dilemma which faces our herbalist friends. They are manoeuvring for a position which will free them from the onus of saying what is the stuff that the patient is swallowing. I hope that your Lordships will oppose this Amendment.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

May I add something on this Amendment? The first thing I want to say is that I agree with my noble friend the Marquess of Salisbury on what the Amendment means. There is no doubt at all, as I conceive it, that the effect of Clause 9, subsection (4) is this, that the only things which are included in the possible defence for herbalists which we are concerned with under subsection (4) are articles consisting of substances produced in the way mentioned in paragraph (a), that is, by drying, crushing, or comminuting. I will add something about the mixtures a little later. That is perfectly clear because of the words in brackets "(but not subjecting to any other process)." Those are the only ways in which the herbalist can compound, for the purposes of this sub-section, either an ingredient or a constituent. If the Lord Chancellor is right this clause should be confined to ingredients, but I apprehend it relates both to constituents and ingredients, though that I need not deal with for the moment. Those are the only ways in which the substances can be produced.

I wholly agree with the Lord Chancellor that the addition of all the words mentioned in the proposed Amendment that Viscount Plumer is making goes a great deal too far, because, instead of having a simple mixture of certain herbs, if the words the noble Viscount has put in his Amendment were added, totally different chemical substances might be produced, such as poisons of the most terrible kind, which it is not intended that the herbalists should be allowed to use at all. I would mention the one thing which some of your Lordships might. not think so very serious an objection to the Amendment from your point of view. If the word "distilling" were there the herbalists could make a substance known as whisky by distilling barley, and it cannot be intended that that should be within the power of the herbalist to do for the purpose of obtaining a defence for persons charged with selling an article in contravention of subsection (1). For my part I do not know, and I am venturing now to ask the Lord Chancellor what is the objection to the word "boiling" which is suggested in the Amendment. As I understand it, the subsection does not permit the herbalist to take a plant and, in addition to crushing it, boil it. I apprehend that boiling or steeping the herb in water for the purposes of making the herbalist's particular substance is not really a thing which the Government would wish the herbalist not to be allowed to do for the purposes of this defence.

I do not myself know what the effect of macerating the herb would be, nor why there is any particular objection to its being infused in some way. I can conceive, as I have said, that distilling or decocting might lead to a wholly different chemical. I do not know about pressing and expressing, but I imagine simple pressing would be a thing necessarily done when the herbs were being pressed for the purpose of making them into a cake of soap. Surely that is not objectionable. I rather am inclined to regard this Amendment, though it goes too far, from a very sympathetic standpoint, because I do not believe that the substances produced by boiling or by pressing of the various herbs would really result in anything but that which herbalists do every day, and which the Government do not want them to stop doing, and in giving them every liberty to do those things which are the everyday practice, as a defence for an act in contravention of Clause 9. I state these things with the greatest humility, because I am not a chemist and I accept for my part as gospel truth whatever has been said on this subject by my noble friend Lord Horder.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I would like to ask the Lord Chancellor whether, if these words which Viscount Plumer proposes to insert, were not included, it would not be almost impossible for the herbalists to carry on their trade.

LORD ADDISON

I would like to express the hope that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will not accept this Amendment. If these processes were included it might be possible to produce highly poisonous medicines and sell them without disclosure. We ought to obtain disclosure of what is being sold and these other processes would cover practically the whole of the British Pharmacopoeia so far as it is produced from herbs or plants. It would apply to some of the most potent things and people ought to know what they are buying.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I must ask leave to intervene for a minute or two in order to deal with two or three points. The noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, asked a very natural question, but I must point out, as I did on Second Reading, that this is not the only provision for the benefit of the herbalists and that in subsection (5) a much more extensive provision is made if the article is sold under a proprietary designation and the most important herbal preparations are now so sold. In that case there is a much more elaborate provision in subsection (5) which inures for their benefit. This subsection (4) was designed to cover simple herbal remedies. As has been pointed out by my noble friend opposite, if you once begin to add other words to it you will be inevitably carried into districts which nobody would be willing to occupy. For example, if you were to apply the Amendment authorising other preservatives that would authorise treatment with a mineral acid. You would need to be a very good chemist and I dare say a very good doctor before you would know what would be the effect of taking certain vegetable products and treating them with mineral acid. You might produce a wholly different substance quite outside the range, I should have supposed, of herbalist activities properly so-called. Therefore, speaking for the Ministry of Health, which has been advised on this matter by extremely competent medical authorities, I cannot possibly take the responsibility of agreeing to such an addition as this.

I doubt very much whether the full effect of what my noble friend is proposing can be realised unless one looks at the next Amendment by which he proposes to add to water other preservatives. If you take these two Amendments together, and imagine in place of water the use of alcohol and the use of many forms of chemical products, the result would be that the ordinary shopkeeper—because it is not limited to herbalists—a person who has no knowledge whatever of the operation of medicines or their composition, would be given a whole range of things which could be put into a bottle with preservatives and sold for what they might be worth. As the noble Lord, Lord Horder, said, the object of this Bill is not to inflict injury on anybody, but to make sure that in the future people who buy medicines not specially prescribed for themselves shall have the means of knowing what it is they are going; to swallow, and that their doctors should know by examining the bottle what they have swallowed. The whole of that object would be defeated if we take this subsection which is intended to apply to simple herbal remedies and transform it into something more elaborate.

THE EARL OF STAIR

I am a little worried by the idea of saying that any preservatives should not be allowed. It came to my notice quite lately that you can convert a vegetable which is poisonous in a green state to a perfectly harmless substance by ensilage. That can be done with things like potato tops. If that can be done with potatoes for animal food something of the same kind might be done for human food. One would hope that the farmer is not going to be landed in trouble when he produces animal food by the process of silage.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Bill does not apply to animals at all. It only applies to medicines for human beings.

THE EARL OF STAIR

If a process can be used for animal food presumably it can be used for human food as well.

THE Marquess of SALISBURY

I understand from the reply of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor—or rather from his silence—that the interpretation that I ventured to put on the terms of the clause was accurate, that as a matter of fact by mentioning certain processes and leaving out what my noble friend wishes to insert those other processes will be actually forbidden. I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount if he would address himself to that point.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am sorry that I did not make myself plain. The noble Marquess will appreciate that this is not the only clause in the Bill which protects the herbalist. So far as this clause is concerned it deals, as I endeavoured to make plain, with simple herbal remedies and the interpretation which the noble Marquess put upon the clause is quite accurate. Where I venture to think he fell a little into error was in supposing that this was the sum total of the protection given to herbalists. It is not. I am quite unable to see how you can extend the provisions in this subsection without producing the sort of consequences which medical members of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Horder, and the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, have already pointed out. The place where the herbalists gets additional protection, if I may repeat myself, is in subsection (5), to which we shall come shortly.

VISCOUNT PLUMER

I am not perfectly satisfied with the reply of the noble and learned Viscount and I should like to deal with one point raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham. He pointed to the fact that distilling would be permitted and he mentioned whisky as something which a herbalist might produce. If a herbalist produced whisky he would find the Customs and Excise authorities coming down on him, so I do not think that comes into the argument. These processes have been used by herbalists for a long period. As I say, I do not think the noble and learned Lord Chancellor's answer is entirely satisfactory, but we have been willing to meet the Government as far as possible and if the Lord Chancellor assures me that herbalists are going to be protected by subsection (5) I will withdraw this Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Subsection (5) is the one to which attention should be directed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT PLUMER moved, after "water," to insert "with or without the addition as preservatives of glycerine, alcohol, esters of parahydroxy benzoic acid, or such other preservative as the Minister of Health may sanction". The noble Viscount said: This Amendment deals with the use of preservatives. It is absolutely impossible to produce a herbal medicine without some form of preservative, and at a conference with the Ministry of Health legal advisers it was suggested that I should propose an Amendment introducing three well-known preservatives which herbalists wished to use. I have added the words "such other preservative as the Ministry of Health may sanction" in order to cover further experiments and researches which may reveal better preservatives than the ones I have included in my Amendment. It must be obvious to anybody that no herbal remedy which is pure can be kept for any length of time without the addition of some form of preservative, and I should like to be able to put it to your Lordships that a herbal preparation which has gone bad is far more dangerous, and is liable to cause far more injury than a herbal preparation which has an appropriate form of preservative in it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 28, after ("water") insert the said words.—(Viscount Plumer.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I cannot, of course, claim to have the scientific knowledge with which to judge of these particular preservatives. I do not know if my noble friend opposite has observed the Amendment. It may be that he is able to advise the Committee about it. The one matter about which I have had some information is the proposal that alcohol should be a permitted preservative—I mean alcohol in the chemical sense. My information is that, if alcohol is used as a preservative in these cases, a percentage of something like 20 per cent. of the whole mixture will probably be necessary for that purpose. Alcohol might, in fact, result in the preparation of a tincture, I think it is called, which is a manufactured article quite remote from the simple herbal remedy and one having wholly different results. It being now understood, I think, that this clause is intended to preserve the right to make simple herbal remedies, and that more elaborate proposals are to be found in subsection (5), I think your Lordships will see why I cannot, on behalf of the Government, accept this proposal. Originally it was suggested that any preservative might be permitted, then, after seeing the Ministry of Health, the noble Viscount made the list which is now before us. I certainly could not accept the proposal to use as a preservative the one which I have mentioned and on which I have received advice, nor could I agree to permit these others with more elaborate names, which I think sound distinctly alarming. I regret, therefore, that I cannot accept the Amendment.

LORD HORDER

I think that the vast experience which the noble and learned Viscount has had in being briefed has not misled him on this occasion. By that I mean that I think the experts on the chemical and medical side who have advised the Government on this matter have not misled your Lordships. I will admit, now that the noble Viscount has withdrawn the previous Amendment, that I personally could see no reason why individual ingredients by themselves should not be macerated, infused, boiled, decocted, pressed or expressed, but I see every objection to the mixture at any stage being subjected to any one of those processes. On the question of preservatives, the same objection in general applies to the addition of glycerine, alcohol and this chemical item—which perhaps not unnaturally is a mystery to your Lordships, but which is itself alcoholic—esters of parahydroxy benzoic acid, or such other preservative as the Minister of Health may sanction.

Dealing with glycerine, alcohol and other alcoholic preparations for use as preservatives, no quantity is suggested and no minimum amount. That, of course, is very pertinent. The action of these preservatives upon the questionable derivatives remaining after macerating, infusing, boiling, and so on, is such as to render the principle of the Bill which calls for disclosure—the principle which has been admitted both by your Lordships' House and by another place—of no effect.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

After what my noble friend Lord Horder has said, it seems to me to be perfectly impossible to support the present Amendment. I must admit that, with greater reason for frankness, I do not think that the last Amendment was completely dealt with or answered on behalf of the Government. I also wish to say, because what I said on the last occasion might be misunderstood, that I quite agree with what my noble friend the Lord Chancellor says—that subsection (5) does in fact provide a method by which the herbalists' legitimate business can, I think, be completely protected. Therefore I think it does not matter very much if the net result of subsection (4) is that it is a subsection that will not in the least help them.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I understand that chemists are allowed to use other preservatives than water, and therefore I do not see why herbalists should not also be allowed to use them. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gender. I also understood from the noble Viscount, Lord Plumer, that when he saw the Ministry the officials there said that certain preservatives would be allowed. Now the noble and learned Lord Chancellor comes before your Lordships' House and says he cannot accept anything in the way of preservatives. Of course, as the Bill is being rushed through so rapidly, it is rather difficult to get an Amendment on Report. What I would suggest to my noble friend is. that he should modify his Amendment so that it would read as follows: after "water" insert "with such preservative as the Minister of Health may sanction."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I did not wish to rise to speak again on this matter, but I do so out of respect to my noble friend behind me who has just referred to the matter of the goose and the gander. I do not desire to use these analogies, but after all, the chemist is an individual who has been through an elaborate scientific training and prolonged examination and has received the necessary certificate of his technical fitness. I have not the slightest desire to cast any reflection on the herbalists, but I merely say that they have been through none of these things. That is, perhaps, the reason why the goose, as my noble friend might say, cannot be treated in the same way as the gander.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

The noble and learned Lord Chancellor did not say whether he would be prepared to accept an Amendment such as I have suggested?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am sorry, I did not know that I was being asked that question. I am afraid I could not accept such an Amendment. It would not refer to the quantity, and for all I know if there is liberty to add other preservatives there might be cases where preservatives would form the largest part of the mixture. I do not think the best medical or scientific opinion would regard that as being an appropriate arrangement. I have explained to the Committee, with some reiteration I am afraid, the reasons why I think the present provisions in the Bill are correct. I can assure noble Lords that there is no sort of conflict between myself and the Ministry of Health. I have naturally informed myself of the views of that Department. Now that we have had this discussion I would ask that this Amendment should not be persisted in.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

There is one word which I should like to add. The noble and learned Viscount said that it would not be known what quanties of preservatives are used, but the words "including the quantity" could be inserted.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR had given Notice of Amendments in subsection (5) for the purpose of omitting "an article" and, after "section," of inserting "an article consisting of or comprising a substance recommended as a medicine." The noble and learned Viscount said: I am asking the Committee to leave out the words "an article," because I am proposing to insert, a little lower down, words which I think will give some satisfaction to our herbalist friends. Anxiety was expressed as to whether the phrase in subsection (5) (a) "the substance recommended as a medicine which the article consisted of or comprised" was such as to make it plain that the "substance" is the whole substance, the thing sold—the cough mixture, for example—or whether it applied to each element in the mixture itself. The intention was that it should be the whole substance contained in the article—the bottle of cough mixture, or whatever it might be—and that it did not refer to each one of the constituents of, for example, the cough mixture.

Obviously the point is of very great importance, to herbalists among others. If you have an ingredient of the mixture which is itself recommended as a medicine and is described in the British Pharmacopoeia, would they be able to use it in compounding a more elaborate medicine? It may be that that was the effect of the clause as drawn; at any rate, the clause was drawn in a form which gave them that anxiety. We wished to remove that anxiety entirely, because that was not our intention, and therefore I propose this Amendment and those which follow in order to make the necessary change. Subsection (5) of Clause 9 will therefore read: It shall also be a defence for a person charged with selling in contravention of subsection (t) or subsection (2) of this section an article consisting of or comprising a substance recommended as a medicine to prove that the sale was effected at a shop. … and so forth. To give an illustration which is not intended to be frivolous, but which shows what I mean, take the composition of a cocktail made of tomato juice and Worcester sauce, and assume that tomato juice and Worcester sauce are both in the British Pharmacopoeia. In that case it would still be permissible, under a proprietary designation, giving the thing some fancy name, to sell the mixture of those two things without their being sold by a chemist at all, because the test is not whether each of the elements which are combined, or any of them, is or are in the British Pharmacopoeia, but whether the sum total is in the British Pharmacopoeia, and whether it is sold under that designation. I hope that I have made the point clear. I believe it is a matter of some importance to those whom my noble friend is representing, and I shall be very glad indeed if he finds it possible to say that this really does meet a portion of his difficulties.

Amendment moved— Page to, line 31, leave out ("an article").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISCOUNT PLUMER

I think that the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment meets our difficulties to a certain extent, and if it is taken in conjunction with the Amendment which I shall move later, to insert after the word "comprised" the words "as distinguished from individual constituents of that substance," I believe that that would make the clause absolutely plain and would meet all our objections. That is the view of our legal adviser.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I should like to say—I hope to give pleasure by saying it—that I am quite willing to accept that proposal.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 32, after ("section") insert ("an article consisting of or comprising a substance recommended as a medicine").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 34, leave out from ("medicine") to ("was") in line 35.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT PLUMER had given Notice of an Amendment, in paragraph (a) of subsection (5), after "comprised," to insert "as distinguished from individual constituents of that substance." The noble Viscount said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I speak with deference here, because for the moment I do not quite understand the view of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor on how far "constituents" mean something different from "ingredients"; but should not the words here be "constitutents or ingredients"? Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will consider whether that is right or not, having regard to his view on the preceding clause.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think that my noble and learned friend's suggestion is a useful one. Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Plumer, will move his Amendment in the form of inserting "as distinguished from individual constituents or ingredients of that substance."

VISCOUNT PLUMER

I will move the Amendment in the form suggested by the noble and learned Viscount.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 35, after ("comprised") insert ("as distinguished from individual constituents or ingredients of that substance").—(Viscount Plumer.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 [Defences to and evidence on charges under two preceding sections]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to the clause: (3) No prosecution for a contravention of any of the provisions of the last two preceding sections shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General: Provided that this subsection shall not apply to a prosecution for a contravention of any of the provisions of Section eight instituted by the Society or by a food and drugs authority within the meaning of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938.

The noble and learned Viscount said: On the Second Reading, one of the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Plumer, was that although the requirement of the previous approval for a prosecution by a Law Officer appeared in subsection (4) of Clause 7, at the top of page 8— No prosecution for a contravention of any of the provisions of the last two preceding sections shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General"— in relation to Clauses 5 and 6, there was no similar provision in relation to Clauses 8 and 9. I think that there is some force in that observation. I should like to reassure my noble friend and others as far as I can, and therefore I move this Amendment. Clause 8 is that which compels disclosure of the composition of the medicines, and Clause 9 restricts the sales of medicines by unauthorised persons. I feel obliged to ask, however, that the qualification which I suggest should be given by way of proviso— Provided that this subsection shall not apply to a prosecution for a contravention of any of the provisions of Section 8 instituted by the Society or by a food and drugs authority within the meaning of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. That exception is limited to Clause 8, which deals with the disclosure of the composition of medicines. The Pharmaceutical Society is a statutory body. It is charged by Parliament with the duty, through its inspectors, of examining medicines which are believed to contravene the law. It is by no means a body which exists for the purpose of pursuing herbalists, and I do not think anyone will suggest that it has ever shown an unfair spirit in that respect. It is largely engaged in the business of examining as to compliance with the law relating to poisons and, being the statutory body for the purpose, it is necessary that it should have authority to do this.

I can speak as an old Attorney-General and say that the instances in which you should put upon the Attorney-General the responsibility of authorising a prosecution are limited. He takes it, and he ought to take it, very seriously; he will not sign his name just because you tell him to do so. He has to go into the details and understand them. There are very good reasons why we should require the Attorney-General's previous consent, for instance, in a prosecution for corruption, to prevent blackmailing actions. I am perfectly prepared to put that burden on the Law Officer in the case of the sale of medicines by unauthorised persons, but I am advised that it would be quite wrong to deprive this statutory body of its formal duties under Clause 8. I would wish to point out to my noble friend that I think by doing it in this way those he is particularly interested in are absolutely protected where I believe they felt real concern. I gather from the Ministry of Health that they were concerned lest a rival chemist transacting business in the same neighbourhood should seek to institute proceedings against some shop further down the street. That is absolutely protected because there cannot be such a prosecution except with the authority of the Attorney-General. I do not think I can go further than this. I have no doubt my noble friend will realise it does go a large part of the way.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 35, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

VISCOUNT PLUMER had given Notice of an Amendment to insert the following new clause:

Consent of Attorney-General or Solicitor-General to prosecutions.

".No prosecution for a contravention of the provisions of Sections five, six, eight or nine of this Act shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General."

The noble Viscount said: After the noble and learned Lord Chancellor's explanation I shall not move this Amendment, which will save your Lordships' time, as the learned Lord Chancellor's Amendment has covered the subject.

Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.

Clause 14:

Interpretation.

(I) In this Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them—

"substance" means a preparation.

VISCOUNT PLUMER moved, in subsection (1), after "'substance' includes a preparation," to insert "and when used in relation to recommendation as a medicine means the sum total of all the active constituents of the medicine recommended." The noble Viscount said: This is a definition of the word "substance" used frequently in Clauses 8 and 9 and it is necessary in order to make the meaning clear. Many doubts about the meaning of those clauses will be cleared up if this definition is adopted. Discussions we have had with the Minister's advisers show that this is the meaning they intend to attach to the word. Therefore, I cannot see any reason why it should not be used. I have an opinion here from learned Counsel, Mr. Montgomery. He says: 'Substance,' when used in relation to recommendation as a medicine means the sum total of all the active constituents of the medicine recommended. Without a definition it is impossible to tell what 'substance' means, and I feel sure it would be held in the Divisional Court—the final Court for Criminal offences—that substance means or, at the least, includes each active constituent or ingredient. The Amendment is intended to be additional and to make any question or doubt impossible.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 12, after ("preparation") insert the said words.—(Viscount Plumer.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am sorry the last matter should be one in which I cannot accept the Amendment. I would be very glad to do it if I could. I think this Amendment should be resisted. It is a most technical matter and it comes in the definition clause. The Bill, as drafted, is drafted on the basis that where a medicine is a mixture the substance which is recommended is the mixture. It may of course contain both active constituents and inert constituents. It is the whole medicine that is recommended and not any part thereof. The effect of the Amendment combined with the Bill may not be very clear, but apparently one effect would be, in the wording of the requirements of Clause 8, in relation to the disclosure of proportionate quantities of active constituents. At present under the Bill what has to be stated is the approximate percentage of each active constituent in the mixture. Under the Amendment, what would happen would be the proportion expressed as a percentage of each active constituent to the total of active constituents. Those two things are by no means the same.

To give an extreme example: if one had a mixture containing two active constituents which was as to 99.9 per cent. water and as only to 1 per cent. active constituents divided equally between the two of them, then under the Amendment it would be legitimate to say 50 per cent. for constituent A and 50 per cent. for constituent B, whereas under the Bill it would be necessary to say 05 per cent. in each case. That makes a very material difference, and supposing there was reason to investigate what it is a patient has been swallowing it would obviously make an enormous difference whether the active constituents are stated according to their correct quantitive measure or whether you simply keep your proportions. The disclosure required by the Bill gives useful information both to the individual who buys and to anyone subsequently treating that individual and requiring to know what he has been taking. The disclosure which would be legitimate under the Amendment, would, with great respect, be useless for those purposes altogether. Indeed the smaller the proportion of active to inert constituents the more misleading would this sort of disclosure be. It is not in any real sense a disclosure at all. I apologise for having to inflict upon the Committee this short lecture, partly on chemistry and partly on arithmetic, but I hope I have made it plain that the draftsman knew what he was about. I could not accept the Amendment.

VISCOUNT PLUMER

I am not at all satisfied with what the Lord Chancellor has said because I have been advised that these words are the actual words the Ministry intended to use. I fail to see that the rather complicated explanation which the noble and learned Viscount has given has any bearing at all. This is merely an amplifying clause to prevent prosecution, and I repeat that I fail to see that the explanation given has any bearing on it.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 [Application to Scotland]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The Amendment to this clause is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 24, after ("seven") insert ("subsection (3) of Section ten").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

House resumed.

Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Amendments reported.

Clause 9 [Restriction of sale of medicines by unauthorised persons]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame, has an Amendment he wishes to move on Clause 9, page 10, line 28. The noble Viscount wishes to leave out the word "water" in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) and insert "with or without the addition of such preservatives and the quantity thereof as the Minister of Health may sanction."

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount, in Committee, resisted an Amendment by my noble friend Lord Plumer which was desgined to include certain preservatives which could be used by herbalists, and in order to try and get over that difficulty I have handed in this manuscript Amendment which the noble and learned Viscount has read out. It seems to me that unless such an Amendment is accepted it will be very difficult indeed for herbalists to carry on their trade. It certainly does enable the Minister of Health to give that help to herbalists of which they stand so badly in need. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 28, leave out ("water") and insert ("with or without the addition of such preservatives and the quantity thereof as the Minister of Health may sanction").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I thoroughly appreciate the spirit in which the proposal is made. The House will have noticed that my noble friend, in framing his Amendment, has endeavoured to meet a. comment which I made on the Committee stage—namely, that the Ministry of Health could not give leave for preservatives in complete ignorance of what quantity of preservatives was going to be used. My noble friend has therefore drawn his Amendment with the words "and the quantity thereof as the Minister of Health may sanction," but I very much fear that in drawing his Amendment to meet one difficulty he has created a far greater one. The Amendment in the form in which he now moves it would involve the Ministry of Health in examining the proposed formula of every herbalist for every substance he proposes to make and judging what was the proper quantity of preservative to be admitted in each particular case. A whole Department would be needed for such a purpose. It is not to be supposed that a certain percentage of, say, glycerine or alcohol is right for every substance. There must be different degrees or maxima for different substances, and my noble friend will see that it is really a quite impracticable duty to place on the Ministry of Health. I hope, therefore, that he will withdraw his Amendment.

He ended by saying—and here he strikes a sympathetic chord in everybody's mind—that he was afraid that if this was not done the herbalist would not have the opportunities he ought to have for carrying on his business. I must repeat—for the last time—that in order to ascertain what this Bill does to the herbalists one must not concentrate on subsection (4) (a), and that a far more important provision is the provision contained in subsection (5), which gives him extremely wide latitude as long as he sells his production under proprietary designation. For these reasons, which I hope I have made entirely plain, I am unable to accept the Amendment.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Lords, I do not desire to press the Amendment, but it does show what a bad precedent this is in rushing this Bill through. There has been no time, in consequence, to draft a proper Amendment which might be acceptable to His Majesty's Government. I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that it amounts almost to a scandal that this Bill should be rushed through, as it has been, in this House. It is a Bill of such a nature that it might have been introduced here some weeks ago and properly considered.

VISCOUNT PLUMER

My Lords, surely the Lord Chancellor's objection might be met by limiting the amount of preservative that should be added? There is no reason why a limitation clause should not be put in. That is very usual, and surely the chemists of the Ministry of Health would be able, without any great additional amount of work, as the Lord Chancellor fears, to arrive at a solution. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to this fact, that the use of preservatives was discussed with the Ministry, and we were practically assured by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health that if we submitted three names they would be sympathetically received. I fail to see that this is very sympathetic treatment which the Lord Chancellor has given.

LORD ADDISON

My Lords, I should like for one moment to give my support to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. Really I should be horrified to think what this Amendment would mean to the Department—if I had the misfortune to be at the head of it. I want to know, first of all, what is a preservative. The Ministry would have to satisfy themselves what is a preservative. Suppose you say alcohol is a preservative, which it is.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

Surely chemists know what preservatives are?

LORD ADDISON

I am speaking now with some knowledge of chemistry. Directly you add a preservative like alcohol, you immediately change a very considerable number of ingredients. In the things to which you are adding alcohol, you immediately produce a tincture of something or other. For instance, if alcohol were added to aconite, it would not merely preserve the aconite leaves, but it would cause a change, and the result would be an exceedingly dangerous and potent poison. I sincerely hope that, in endeavouring to make the Bill workable, the Minister of Health will not be asked in every case, not only to define and decide the preservative, and try and invent a preservative if he can which would not change any of the constituents of the things being preserved, which would be extraordinarily difficult, but, apart from that, define the quantities in each individual case. It would not damage the herbalists to leave this out, and it would not help them in the least to add the Amendment, whereas it would make the work of the Department almost impossible.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, may I ask one question which I hope will enable us to understand what we are talking about? Is it not the fact that the herbalists will be able to put preservative in their concoctions and be protected under subsection 5 (a)?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I believe the answer is "Yes."

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I should like to say first of all how very grateful we all ought to be for the courteous way in which the noble and learned Viscount has conducted this Bill through your Lordships' House, but I am afraid that is rather the limit of my satisfaction at the way in which this Bill has been brought before us. I am quite sure there is no member sitting on the Front Bench who cannot but feel something amounting almost to shame at the way this Bill is being put through your Lordships' House. The truth is that last week, when it became dear that it was a controversial Bill in certain particulars though not in its main outline, the Leader of the House was good enough to feel constrained to give time for my noble friend Lord Plumer and others acting with him to put down Amendments, but the consequence was that all the stages of the Bill—not only the Committee stage but the Report stage and Third Reading—had to be dealt with at once without notice, and therefore the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Bertie has proposed cannot be adequately considered. I am afraid I could not have supported him in the Lobby, but the matter he has raised is evidently one that requires very careful consideration.

There are now no means of considering it properly in this House of the Legislature. This House is not allowed to consider a point of that kind. The proper thing is that this Amendment should have been considered on the Report stage at a later time. You cannot consider a matter of this kind without adequate notice because it all depends upon very accurate drafting. But no: the House of Lords, sitting here to do business and to see that the legislation of the country is properly carried out, is absolutely deprived of its immemorial right to discuss these things in stages. For instance there is the Third Reading. Your Lordships' House has one great advantage over the other House of Parliament that it is able to amend Bills after Third Reading. This Bill which, as my noble and learned friend Lord Maugham has pointed out, raises many intricate legal difficulties, ought to have been properly discussed. One would have thought it was the business of the Liberal Party or the Labour Party to try and vindicate the liberties of the country and its opportunities of legislation. But no; they are all for putting the Bill through as quickly as possible. I regret very much that that should have been the case. Perhaps I may respectfully say to the Lord Chancellor that he would add to the great courtesy of his demeanour in carrying through this Bill if he would use his influence in another sphere when he is consulted to see that these intricate Bills are presented to your Lordships in proper time.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

My Lords, I have taken no active part in this Bill, and indeed I have no disposition towards either side, but I cannot help saying a word in support of what has just fallen from the noble Marquess opposite. I have for more years than I like to say been asserting over and over again that it is impossible for your Lordships' House to give full consideration to important measures because they have only reached us at the very end of the Session, sometimes in the last days, and that they have had to be hurried through all their stages in far too short a time. That is what is occurring now, and, it seems to me, occurring without any really adequate reason. I can quite understand that the questions with which this Bill is concerned have been too long postponed, and that His Majesty's Government naturally desire to see the Bill on the Statute Book as soon as possible. But why would it not have been feasible, and indeed easy, when it was found there was a mass of opposition to some of the provisions of this Bill, to have gone to-day only as far as the Committee stage, and to postpone further consideration of the Bill until we meet again in the autumn? It might indeed have been possible to postpone even the Committee stage until then. I do not know. It is a question of the ordinary business; but it seems to me that it would have been quite possible, and that no risk whatever would have been run to the passing of the Bill to have postponed it until we meet again after the Recess.

LORD ADDISON

My Lords, with reference to the observations of the noble Marquess opposite, may I say that we are with him entirely in endeavouring to support the proper procedures being adopted with regard to the consideration of Parliamentary business? We are all aware of the many occasions on which Bills have been introduced at the last moment and the House has been expected to pass them without fair opportunities for consideration. In his protest against that I am entirely at one with the noble Marquess; but it would hardly apply as a matter of fact historically to the controversies connected with this Bill, which have been extremely prolonged, because they have been the subject of discussion and dispute for at least twenty years. Nevertheless, I think it would have been seemly, and would have been showing proper consideration for the dignity and work of this House, if the Bill had been introduced at an earlier stage so that it would have been possible to give more time to its consideration.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD MOYNE)

My Lords, I think in view of what has fallen from various noble Lords I should just explain the circumstances, which really were quite beyond the Government's control, that caused this Bill to be taken at such short notice. As the noble Lord opposite has just mentioned, historically this is a very old controversy, and it was the purpose of the Government to find a settlement which should impose no injustice upon any of the varied and legitimate interests concerned. Negotiations went on for many months past, and they took a much longer time than had been expected. I will not go into the reason for that, or as to whether anyone was to blame, but when the Budget was passed it was assumed that the Bill would be put through Parliament in time for the new system to be in force by the beginning of September. If the Bill were not put on the Statute Book before that date very serious grievances would have sprung up. What would have been recognised to be interferences with the legitimate future interests of the chemists will not according to the agreed terms of the Bill now arise.

It was a choice of evils, either to put the Bill through without the ordinary opportunity of Parliamentary discussion, or have a hiatus, and I think on the whole the House will recognise that the Government, much as they regret the necessity of passing this Bill somewhat in haste, in view of the long discussions which had taken place previously outside the walls of Parliament and the pains at which they had been to avoid any feeling of injustice, were right to ask both Houses of Parliament to allow this Bill to pass so as not to create any injustice by having a hiatus between the lapse of the patent medicine duty and the institution of the new system. I hope your Lordships will not feel that it was from any discourtesy or any desire to restrict the right to put down Amendments that this unfortunate necessity arose.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3^a.— (The Lord Chancellor).

On Question, Bill read 3^a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.