HL Deb 14 December 1948 vol 159 cc1014-40

3.53 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON)

My Lords, I regret that my noble friend Lord Huntingdon is still unwell, and as this Bill relates to three Departments and in consequence of my previous experience in these matters, I undertook to commend it to your Lordships myself. We have had National Defence this afternoon and we have had the matter of justice. Now we come to an equally important human necessity—namely, that of food. This Bill deals with the best of all foods; that is to say, milk. I think it can be fairly said that this is rather a long-deferred reform. It has been asked for, in various ways, by men of all Parties, for a long time. I am sure that, subject to any minor Amendments, it will meet with your Lordships' general approval. We want to see that the public can obtain milk that is free from any risk of infection.

Before I come to particular points of importance, may I first mention to your Lordships certain encouraging developments that we have had quite lately? In 1943, about 7,750,000 gallons of milk were supplied to the market from T.T. herds. In five years the figure has gone up from 7,000,000 to 28,000,000, which is a very gratifying increase. Nevertheless, when we are taking it all into account, the amount of T.T. milk supplied as such to the people is only about 9 per cent. of the milk consumed by the people.

EARL DE LA WARR

Twenty-two per cent.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

No; 19.2 is the total produced. The 9 per cent. relates to the general sale. The figures supplied to me show that 19.2 per cent. of the total sales off farms is of this type, but I understand that the general sale to consumers is in the proportion I have given your Lordships. The more rapidly it increases, the better. When we come to the milk which is made safe by pasteurisation, the amount sold now is about 70 per cent. of the total consumption; and the balance is supplied as produced. In 1943 we had a very valuable White Paper, issued by the Government of that day, which, in some of its sections, anticipated the provisions of this Bill. It is Cmd. 6454 and paragraphs 26 to 29 contemplate provisions more or less in line with this Bill.

I am not going to say anything as to the amount of infection which unfortunately has been derived from impure milk, but we know that complete confidence of the public in milk is of first-rate national importance. I think we shall all agree that the efforts of Lord Woolton, during his tenure of office, to encourage the consumption of good milk represents an enduring national service, and the health of our children to-day (which is really remarkable, in all the circumstances) is very largely due to the increased consumption of milk. This Bill is designed to secure that, in the places where it is made available, the public are assured of completely good milk, free from any risk of contamination.

There is an objection which is sometimes raised to this method of approach. It has been suggested that what is proposed in this Bill—namely, the provision of facilities for securing that milk is completely pure—may be a handicap to the improvement of our herds. It is suggested that it may prejudice the improvement of our herds. That is certainly a most important consideration. Nothing we do should be allowed to interfere with the improvement of our herds. Great improvement is taking place and, I am glad to say, quite rapidly. Of course (in this respect anyhow) we have to recognise that our Scottish brethren North of the Border are considerably in front of us in the matter of T.T. herds. They have been more energetic, and they have succeeded in getting a much larger percentage of their herds free from tubercle than we have hitherto. But I am glad to say that we are making very rapid progress now, and I find on inquiry that the number of attested herds has more than doubled in this country during the last four years. At the present time, it is estimated that there are 35,700 attested herds in England and Wales, and they represent between them nearly 1,500,000 cattle. That is a notable figure, but we want to go much further than that. I was glad to notice that a short time ago my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture opened in York a market which had been specially designed and which provided for the sale of only attested cattle, a very appropriate procedure; and I pay a tribute to the enterprise of that ancient and distinguished city. That example, I believe, is to be followed extensively.

There is another feature which I might mention, which is partly related to this Bill, and which, it seems to me, has required considerable time to bring into operation. I refer to the Food and Drugs (Milk and Dairies) Act of 1944, under which certain powers are transferred to the Minister of Agriculture, who becomes responsible for the registration of dairy farmers, the issue of licences and other matters. Many inquiries have been made as to why regulations which have to be framed and put into force for bringing this change into operation have been so long delayed. I cannot pretend to be acquainted at first hand with many of the difficulties, but I understand that quite a crop of legal and technical difficulties have arisen from time to time, and they have seriously delayed the completion of these regulations.

I can now inform your Lordships, however, that the Department are able to say now that the matter is so advanced that they will be able very shortly to submit a draft of the regulations to the parties concerned—the National Farmers' Union and others—and it is hoped that the regulations will be completed and brought into operation at the same time as this Bill. I am sure we all hope that that anticipation will be realised, and that under its terms the Ministry will be afforded considerably more authority in the matter of the improvement of our herds. Nevertheless, through our county committees and otherwise, great and rapid progress is being made in all that is necessary and desirable—as the White Paper prophesied, and as many of us had contended for years—so that the public shall be supplied with milk which we know is free from any risk of infection.

In this small Bill, it is suggested that there should be certain designations of milk to be sold: "T.T. milk," "Pasteurised milk," and "Sterilised milk." In addition, with the qualifications I have mentioned, there will be "Accredited milk." Under war-time regulations, and indeed in 1939 under Regulation 55 (g) of the Defence Regulations, "Heat-treated milk" was added as well as "Sterilised milk." Your Lordships will see that in Clause 7 of this Bill that regulation is now repealed. That is done in order to clear the ground; subsequently, sterilised milk will be one of the types of milk which will be on sale under the conditions provided in this Bill.

In Scotland, which (as I have said) is rather in advance of us in these matters, there will be the same classifications—"T.T." "Pasteurised" and "Sterilised"—while the equivalent of "Accredited" milk will be "Standard" milk. In Clause 4 of the Bill your Lordships will see that the two types of milk, "Accredited" and "Standard," are to be kept separate, and may be sold as such in specified areas for a period of five years. At the end of that time, it is hoped that the producing herds will have reached a higher standard, but in any case the milk derived from these sources will be either pasteurised or sterilised before it is sold to the public.

The question then arises, "Where is this to be done?" It is quite certain that it is no good trying to rush this matter, so as to make it compulsory as regards all milk, unless the apparatus, the machinery and the organisation are available. The recommendation is that we should begin this scheme in districts of, I think, 10,000 population. I am speaking as a layman when I commend this Clause 5 to your Lordships, for I do not pretend to be able to understand it fully myself. But Clause 5, at all events, is the clause under which certain places will be appointed places. The large cities, such as London, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow and others, will be places where, when the machinery is complete and arrangements are made, there will be organised distributors appointed by the local authorities, or whoever may be concerned. An order will then be drafted prescribing these places as places in which all the milk sold to the public will be of these assured types. It is evident that in order to bring this machinery into operation smoothly, we must carry the people concerned with us. It is therefore provided in the Bill that, before a regulation is made specifying a particular area, it will be ascertained that there will be adequate machinery for sterilising or pasteurising—as the case may be—the milk, so that when the appointed day does arrive we shall have the machinery and the good will at our disposal for making the machinery efficient and workable. Therefore, an appointed day will be prescribed in the regulations: not the same day for all the places, but according to how the arrangements have been made; it will be one day for one place and a later day for another place.

Then there is the provision in Clause 6 about which the noble Earl opposite has expressed some anxiety—namely, that where some persons in an area have not the necessary apparatus at their disposal, or perhaps cannot afford to buy it, it is provided that the Ministry (in this case the Ministry of Food) shall be able to supplement their efforts, or enter into some arrangement with them so that the area may be able to deal with the milk according to the regulations. There is one point which the noble Earl asked me to look into, and which I have in fact looked into. If your Lordships will refer to Clause 6, you will find at the top of page 5 that where the Minister installs this supplementary apparatus, …he may either buy the milk to be treated and re-sell it after treatment.…"— and so on. The question which the noble Earl put to me is: "How is the Minister to re-sell it?" I can assure your Lordships that there is no intention whatever on the part of the Minister of entering into the retail distribution of milk. The only idea is that it should be made available to the distributors who themselves have not the apparatus or who have provided it jointly with the Ministry, as the case may be. In order to make it clear, I should like to say, here and now, in response to the representations of the noble Earl, that when we come to the Committee stage my noble friend who will be in charge of the Bill will be prepared to accept the words "re-sell it by wholesale." We propose to insert those words in order to make it quite clear that that is what is intended. I hope that that assurance will satisfy your Lordships.

There are other provisions dealing with penalties and offences which I do not now wish to spend time in reading. If your Lordships look at Clauses 8 and 9, you will see that the penalties for the breach of certain conditions are, happily, gradual and not severe. A first offence results in a notice in writing telling the offender that he is committing the offence. After all, it would not do to administer the scheme in such a way as to deprive the public of milk. I will not now go through the details of Clauses 8, 9 and 10, which I am sure your Lordships will agree are fair and reasonable. They refer to penalties. There will be regulations which will bring those into effect, and they will be made under the Food and Drugs Act, so far as England is concerned, and under the Milk and Dairies Act, 1922, as amended, so far as Scotland is concerned. They will be submitted to Parliament. The areas will prescribe what other conditions are to be provided for in the Regulations. In each case where any great city is brought into this scheme, and all the milk in that city will be of this prescribed quality, it must be made available to all the citizens. That is a very comprehensive procedure. Those Regulations will be submitted to Parliament. I feel sure that where any difficulty arises, it will be the subject of the usual questioning in one of the Houses of Parliament. The position is fully safeguarded, first for consultation and previous preparation in the different cities, which may take a considerable time—in some cases many months—and subsequently for the embodiment of these arrangements in an Order which will be sanctioned by Parliament. With this brief survey of the Bill, I hope that your Lordships will accord it a Second Reading. I beg to move.

Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Addison.)

4.14 p.m.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Viscount for the great clarity with which he has put this Bill before us. He certainly tried to meet some of the points that were causing some of us considerable concern. The principle of the Bill, so far as it goes, is, of course, accepted, and must be accepted. It is now a long time since anyone of any responsibility in the agricultural world was prepared to oppose pasteurisation. The medical and scientific authorities in this country are perfectly clear in their views upon this question. But, before I deal with the Bill itself, there is one word of a general character which I should like to say in view of some of the things that have been said, not by the leading members but by certain members of the medical profession in particular, which would tend to make the public think that the vast majority of tuberculosis cases in this country are caused by the cow, and therefore by the farmer. I mention that matter because it is one which has caused a good deal of pain to responsible farmers, who naturally feel the charge.

Before I go further, I should like to make it quite clear that I am not in any way attempting to discount the harm that is in fact done by bovine tuberculosis. When we look at the actual figures of the incidence of tuberculosis in this country, however, we find that between 98 per cent. and 99 per cent. of all cases of pulmonary tuberculosis and 70 per cent. of all cases of non-pulmonary tuberculosis are due to the human type of bacillus and not to the bovine type at all. That, I think, begins to bring the problem to its proper proportions. In matters of disease, I do not consider that it is always fair to deal solely with figures of deaths, because there is great suffering apart from deaths; but the figures of actual deaths in this country from tuberculosis caused by the bovine type of bacillus are given as somewhere between 6.4 per cent. and 8.4 per cent. If one could get the figures for children, one would find that the proportion of deaths from tuberculosis caused by the bovine type of bacillus would be swollen. That has to be admitted.

Why is this so? Why is the incidence of bovine tuberculosis less than members of the public think it to be? There are in this regard a number of rather surprising facts. One figure, which I think has been vouched for by both the medical and scientific world, is that under 1 per cent. of cows that in fact react to tuberculosis have themselves given tuberculous milk, because I think it is well known that the infection generally comes from the udder; in fact, it is more likely to come from the udder than from anywhere else, but I think it can get into the milk from other sources. That is a state of affairs which can be detected clinically fairly easily. We have to realise that already no less than 70 per cent. of the milk of this country is pasteurised. If we take the figure for London alone, it will be well over 90 per cent. The figure supplied to me by the Milk Marketing Board as being the total proportion of T.T. milk going into consumption is 22 per cent. of the whole. The noble Viscount said that only 9 per cent. of milk going into consumption is T.T. milk.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

No.

EARL DE LA WARR

We would like to be quite clear upon that point.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

My figure was 19.2 per cent. produced and sold. For milk sold in general sales, the figure I gave was about 9 per cent.

EARL DE LA WARR

Yes, I think I understood the point; because we are all aware that, unfortunately, at the moment quite a large quantity of this T.T. milk is in fact mixed with other milk. Doubtless, that explains the point. Then, in addition to that, I think 25 per cent. is actually accredited. The fact that the 70 per cent., the 22 per cent., and the 25 per cent. add up to rather more than 100 per cent. means merely that there is a great deal of overlapping between those three classes. I mention those facts only because I think they underline what I venture to say now—namely, that this problem is one which requires urgent and drastic treatment, but it does leave us free from a need for what I call panic action. That was really one of the main reasons why I particularly regretted—although the noble Viscount has tried to go some way to meet us—that the Government should have decided to advance on one leg, so to speak, in dealing with this problem, and to in troduce legislation dealing with pasteurisation, which we are all prepared to support, without at the same time announcing their policy with regard to encouraging the cleaning-up of herds, cowsheds and so on.

With regard to buildings, and the cleaning-up of cowsheds, I think we all agree that the announcement of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, to-day is extremely welcome. The multiplicity of authorities from which are suffering at the moment, with bordering counties having quite different and often contradictory regulations, has not only been confusing to the farmer but has naturally tended to bring the whole system of inspection into disrepute and contempt. I hope (as I am sure will be the case) that the instructions of the Government will be that only the most reasonable necessities shall be insisted upon. Many of us who have had to deal with this problem in the past have so often found that if we leave a cowshed just as it is, as virtually a slum cowshed, nobody says anything to us. Then, when we settle down to try to make that cowshed fit for the production of clean milk, we are asked to make unreasonable and expensive alterations, and the temptation is to wish that one had left things as they were.

That is one side of the problem of clean milk, but we hope to hear something fairly soon (I hope before this Bill reaches the Statute Book) about new measures for encouraging the cleaning-up of individual herds. It may or may not be that the present encouragement for the man who is already in the scheme is sufficient, but I am sure about the position of a man who has to take the decision to come into the scheme, and possibly to get rid of a number of his cows by selling them at low prices, because they have not passed the test, and who then has to go into the more expensive "attested" market: he has need of more assistance. Whether it is to be in the form of compensation for cows that he has to dispose of, or in the form of a higher premium, at any rate for the first two or three years, I am not prepared to attempt to dogmatise. But the sooner the Government can tell us what steps they intend to take with regard to this matter, the better. Then again, there is the establishment of clean areas. By "clean areas," I mean areas such as those—possibly in the Welsh hills and similar country—which may not be suitable for production of milk, but which are very suitable for the rearing of clean stock, and those for the establishment of new T.T. milking herds. Again, the sooner we hear from the Government what steps are to be taken in regard to this side of the problem, the better.

My Lords, I must apologise because, so far, I have hardly spoken about the Bill. Turning to the Bill, I would like to thank the noble Viscount for the concession he has made with regard to Clause 6, subsection (2), which was disturbing us a good deal. He will not ask me to say now whether the concession he offered, in that particular form, is exactly what our drafting advisers would advise. But there is no question that it is a very considerable concession. There is one other point that I think is giving very considerable concern to the distributive trade. Like the noble Viscount, I have not found Clause 5 very easy to understand, but I rather think it is the Government's intention, by a combination of Clause 5 and the Schedule, to put into effect the statement which was made in this House two years ago by the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon. He said then: To reduce the risk of contamination after heat treatment, the heat treatment and bottling of milk will be carried out in the same dairy premises, and all heat-treated milk, like T.T. milk, will be sold in closed containers. At the present time, large sections of the distributive trade, and particularly the smaller retailers, buy their milk from a central pasteurising plant; they have their own bottling plant, and they sell it as their own bottled milk. If this statement of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, is put into operation—

VISCOUNT ADDISON

What is the date of that statement?

EARL DE LA WARR

It was made during the debate on Lord Rothschild's motion in 1946. If that is put into operation, as I understand has been fairly officially indicated, then those men will find themselves with a choice of two unacceptable positions. Either they will be driven into the hands of the large wholesale distributors, and have to buy their milk not only pasteurised but bottled, or they will be put to the expense of purchasing (if it is obtainable) pasteurising plant to install on their own premises. Frequently, as we know, the trade has not sufficient capital to purchase such pasteurising plant; and in any event, as the noble Viscount knows, there is a heavy call on all available pasteurising plant, and it is practically unobtainable.

I would ask the noble Viscount to look into that point. I think it could to some extent be met indirectly. If the noble Earl who is to reply could tell us that all orders made under this measure, when it reaches the Statute Book, will be subject to affirmative Resolution, and if he could also give us assurances that Clause 2, subsection (2), enjoins consultation on the Minister before he brings such Orders into operation, I think this and many other fears in the minds of those who are most likely to be affected will be to a large extent allayed. Those are only a few remarks and suggestions that I venture to make on this Bill. In the main, however, I should like to reiterate what I said at the beginning. I would thank the noble Viscount for the manner in which he has put this Bill before us. We certainly desire to give every help and facility in getting it on the Statute Book.

4.30 p.m.

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE

My Lords, although we must all regret the absence through illness of the representative of the Ministry of Agriculture in this House, I nevertheless very much welcome the fact that it has fallen to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to introduce this Bill, because, as I have good reason to know, there is probably no man in either House of Parliament who has taken a more continuous and fervent interest in this subject of pure milk than he has done. I think it was about forty years ago that, in another place, I made my first speech on an agricultural topic; and that speech was devoted largely to the subject which we are considering in this House to-day. Only three years ago—on April 11, 1945—I initiated a two-days' debate upon milk, with particular regard to the quantity, as well as the quality, of milk and the optimum to be aimed at in both respects. The noble Earl, who I am glad to see sitting opposite to-day, made a very sympathetic reply on that occasion.

I came to the House to-day with the intention of being somewhat of a critic of this Bill, but the noble Viscount, Lord Addison has to some extent cut the ground from under my feet by telling us that the recommendations of that portion of the White Paper of 1943 which is not dealt with in the Bill will probably be put into operation through regulations, simultaneously with the coming into force of this Bill after its passage. I am bound to tell your Lordships that the perusal of this Bill gave me a severe headache. The wording of the Bill is not only a bad example of legislation by reference but the Bill is so full of nebulous and bewildering verbosity as seriously to cloud both its object and the contemplated process of attaining that object. In fact, it was only after consulting one of our leading farming journals that I discovered that the Bill means that, in future, milk in this country will be either T.T.—that is the product of tuberculin-tested cattle—or pasteurised.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

Or sterilised.

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE

Apropos that intervention, it would certainly interest me—and perhaps the House also—if the noble Viscount, or the noble Earl, would tell us later on what in their opinion is the difference between the two processes (I have no doubt that it means the application of greater heat in one case than in the other), and in what circumstances will milk in the selected areas be sterilised, and in what circumstances will it be pasteurised. I understand that after five years there will be no accredited milk for which to-day a premium is allowed, and that six months after the passage of the Bill the Government are to specify certain districts as what I may call pasteurisation areas or sterilisation areas. Curiously enough, however, the expressions "tuberculin-tested,"T.T.," "pasteurisation" and, even, I believe, "sterilisation" do not appear in the Bill. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, although himself finding it difficult to interpret his Bill—

VISCOUNT ADDISON

No, that is not quite correct. I referred especially to Clause 5. I hope that the noble Viscount will not take me too seriously. I said that Clause 5 gave me considerable difficulty, but that does not apply to much of the other parts of the Bill.

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE

The noble Viscount has greater mental perspicacity than I can claim, in spite of the fact that for many years, when I was a comparatively young man, I carried on a practice as a conveyancing lawyer.

I think we all admit that the basis of a sound milk policy is well-bred and healthy dairy herds. The present Bill departs from the three consecutive stages of a comprehensive programme of milk improvement as laid down in the White Paper, to which the noble Viscount has referred, the eradication of tuberculosis from the dairy herd being practically ignored. These three stages, to summarise them, are these: the progressive elimination of bovine tuberculosis—and that was to be first secondly, the standardisation and simplification of the various regulations and authorities affecting the production and distribution of milk; and, thirdly, closer control over the quality of milk as it reaches the consumer. This Bill deals with the last stage and, in doing so, in my judgment at any rate, puts the cart before the horse—perhaps I should say before two horses, represented by the two other main ideals and intentions adumbrated in the White Paper.

We are told—and I am sure we must all welcome this—that in fact the whole of those three stages are to be undertaken simultaneously. But my chief objection—or the chief objection I intended to state, and I am still inclined to put it forward—is that this system of improvement, of rendering milk safer by heat treatment, tends to discourage the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. The veterinary profession have for many years past been asking for a bold scheme, based mainly upon this eradication. Vague promises have been made for many years, by or on behalf of the Government, that such a policy would be embarked upon at an early date, and discussions continue between representatives of the Milk Marketing Board, the National Farmers' Union and the Ministry of Agriculture. But in those discussions, I understand, so far, the veterinary profession have not taken any part. I venture to suggest that it is most desirable, and would be only fair to a great and enlightened profession, that the National Veterinary Medical Association should be called into consultation in this regard.

My noble friend Lord De La Warr has rightly drawn attention to the fact that although 40 per cent. of the cattle of this country are credited, or rather debited, with probable reaction to the tuberculin test, less than one per cent.—I believe I am right in saying no more than one-half of one per cent.—actually yield tuberculous milk. It is only fair to remind your Lordships that, as against that, only one-half of one per cent. of all classes of cattle in the United States react to the tuberculin test; in Canada about two per cent., and in New Zealand about four per cent. Perhaps the most illuminating figure of all was disclosed recently in Denmark, which to-day has about one-half of one per cent. My great fear is that far from promoting the cleaning up of the herds of Great Britain—a process which by the way is going forward steadily but slowly—this Bill will delay that progress. I wish I could agree with the noble Viscount who suggested that there was a rapid progress; I am afraid there is not, except, of course, in some counties, notably in Wales.

It is quite right to mention Scotland. In this connection, Scotland stands preeminent in Great Britain, but most of the improvement in recent years has been in Wales. I suggest that enforced pasteurisation in the larger urban and industrial areas may delay this process, which in the countries I have mentioned has been carried through successfully in a comparative short period of years. If the public realise that, however tuberculous the cattle in their environment, the milk can be and will be rendered innocuous by pasteurisation, both producers and consumers are likely to be callous about and indifferent to the eradication of the tuberculous disease. In my judgment there will be a decline, rather than a betterment, in the position.

Whatever be the merits of the policy and procedure contemplated by this Bill, it must not surely be allowed to impede or further postpone the more rapid extension of the activities of the Government to improve the health of our dairy herds. For many years and in spite of the policy adumbrated by the White Paper, the Government have done little more than mark time. Most of the leaders of the veterinary profession have repeatedly stated that bovine tuberculosis can be entirely eradicated in this country within ten or fifteen years, provided that an active policy is pursued. Even when the milk is pasteurised, the consumer has the right to demand pure milk from healthy cattle, bottled under the most hygienic conditions. The comparatively small amount of bottling of milk in this country is no credit to us. In Copenhagen, where I have seen the process going on, practically all milk is bottled at the present time, and in the chief cities of New Zealand, with which I am still more conversant, the same applies. Until we bottle milk there is a danger that disease will affect the milk, even after it has been pasteurised and before it reaches the consumer.

As the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, has pointed out, there is an improvement in pure milk production, especially in Scotland and Wales. In the matter of attested herds, Scotland leads the way with an average of 35.3 per cent. Wales stands at 27.5 per cent. Cardigan is a steady first with 85 per cent., Carmarthen has 69 per cent., and Pembroke 45.5 per cent. The average for England is no more than 10 per cent. The figures for Scotland are striking. Shetland can boast of 100 per cent., Bute of 86.5 per cent. and Ayrshire of 85.2 per cent. I quote these figures particularly in order to make it clear that by an emphatic, bold policy on the part of the Government, aiding this volunteer movement of the cleaning up of herds, there is no reason why any large-scale pasteurisation or "doctoring" of milk should take place, and no reason why, by process of healthy enterprise on the part of the producers, backed by the Government, the whole country should not be cleaned of bovine tuberculosis in a comparatively short time. I did not mention the county figures for England after giving the 10 per cent. average, but Westmorland stands first with 37.7 per cent. and Berkshire second with 26.7 per cent. I think I must refer to the achievement of Cardigan. Cardigan, in the course of the last twelve months alone, up to September last, has reduced her non-attested herds by no less than 22.5 per cent. That is a very fine achievement, and I think we in England ought to try and learn a little more in this connection from our Welsh friends.

Before I sit down I want to emphasise the fact that the quantity of milk is almost as important as the quality. Tuberculosis, like mastitis and contagious abortion, materially reduces the yield of our cattle. The loss to farmers from tuberculosis alone is put at £3,000,000 annually. It is far more likely that insufficiency of milk, which the noble Viscount opposite has indicated to be the greatest of foods—certainly of our protective foods—will result in human tuberculosis than that a few bovine tubercule germs will induce the bovine type of the disease in the necks or stomachs of our children. I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend the President of the Royal College of Surgeons will have to say on this a little later. In saying that, I do not minimise the fact that some of our children suffer from bovine tuberculosis, and that a certain number die. But I ask your Lordships to believe that far more children in this country suffer from pulmonary tuberculosis, through lack of milk, the great buttress against disease, than from the occasional ingestion of bovine tubercle germs.

I think we may congratulate ourselves on having produced during the last twelve months 1,300,000,000 gallons of milk in this country. That figure constitutes a record, but we are told by the experts that for full nutrition of our population we need at least another 500,000,000 gallons. Our average annual yield per cow in Great Britain is only about 500 gallons, which is far too low. In that respect we do not compare favourably with most of the civilised countries in the world. If all preventable diseases were prevented, we could easily raise our average yield per cow to at least 700 gallons per annum. I venture to think that the time has arrived when some encouragement in the matter of the price of milk should be given to those who have herds with a much larger yield—shall I say, to herds yielding an average of from 700 or 750 gallons a year and upwards.

I have already indicated that to my mind the most remarkable achievement in recent years in the securing of pure milk for a nation has undoubtedly been that of Denmark. In that connection I have received the latest figures from my friend Mr. Moltesen, who is the agricultural adviser to the Danish Government. He mentions that last July, 99.9 per cent. of all Danish herds were tuberculin tested, at which date 99.2 per cent. were found to be free from tuberculosis. All that has been achieved since 1942, when the Danish Pure Milk Act was passed. In conclusion, I wish to indicate the sort of means by which Denmark has produced these striking results. In a report on this subject lately issued in Denmark and published by the National Veterinary Association, I find these words: Thus, one clause in the law"— that is the law of 1942— says that every dairy which prior to April 1, 1943, has not adopted a plan approved by the Veterinary Directorate for the combating of the tuberculosis in the district of this dairy, has to lower the price of milk delivered from non-tuberculosis-free herds by an amount fixed by the Ministry of Agriculture. Interpreted in English coinage, that reduction per kilogram of milk is a fraction of a penny. The report goes on: The amount of money thus subtracted is put in the bank in an account, and it is paid back to the owner of the herd concerned only if his herd becomes tuberculosis-free within three years after the dairy district has obtained 80 per cent. tuberculosis-free herds. If not, this amount of money becomes the property of the dairy. This clause has greatly stimulated the dairies to adopt the plans for combating the tuberculosis. I apologise for having taken up so much of your Lordships' time, but if there is one subject more than any other upon which I feel strongly and upon which I appreciate the gravity to the health and efficiency of the whole nation, it is on this matter of pure milk. I am perfectly certain that unless the problem is tackled at its source—namely, the prevalence of the disease amongst the cattle of this country—we shall never within a reasonable distance of time effectually solve the problem.

4.54 p.m.

LORD WEBB-JOHNSON

My Lords, I have listened with great interest to my noble friend Lord Bledisloe. I think your Lordships will agree that no one has approached this question with more feeling and determination than he has, and he has achieved much by his efforts. In common with others, I have a little difficulty in finding the exact meaning of Clause 5, but I have had no difficulty in finding the meaning of the Bill and the object it has in view. I welcome it most warmly. How could I do otherwise when I have seen the suffering that results in children from infection by the tubercle bovine bacillus? My noble friend Lord Bledisloe may be right in saying that the cart is before the horse, or the pair of horses; the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, may be right in saying that it is an advance on one leg. Nevertheless, from my point of view, an advance on one leg or with the cart before the horses is an advance, provided the horses are not backing the cart or the cart is not pulling the horses backwards. I do not know exactly how that works out, but the metaphor was dragged in by the noble Viscount.

Surely the noble Viscount would not wish that we should wait ten or fifteen years until the herds of the country are cleaned up. Let us get on. What is going to happen to children in that intervening period of ten to fifteen years? The noble Viscount knows as well as I do that results of infection are not counted in deaths, and they are not counted in incidence of disease. Some members of this House have been struggling this afternoon to save a fully grown healthy man from having his education interrupted by a short period of military service. What about the whole of your youth, the whole of your life, being altered, perhaps by seven years' immobilisation, with disability at the end of it; a struggle for life at the beginning, a struggle for limb later on and eventually, if there is a cure, great disability? Do not let anything delay an advance which can do something to eradicate this infection.

4.58 p.m.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

My Lords, I shall not attempt to discuss the merits of pasteurisation. There is a great weight of expert opinion in favour of it, and we have just heard a very powerful speech in its favour. It has been so fully discussed that I do not feel any useful purpose can be served by a layman entering into the discussion at this stage. This Bill, however, deals with only one side of the whole question. Apart from the delivery of safe milk, there is the problem of the production of clean milk in ever-increasing quantities.

In the White Paper of July, 1943, as has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, it was stated that the basis of a sound milk policy, whether from the point of view of the economics of production or the quality of the product, is a well-bred, healthy dairy herd. I think that is accepted by everyone, but this Bill, introduced as it has been alone, may tend to obscure the issue. Many people may feel that as soon as milk is made reasonably safe, the rest of the problem is of secondary importance. The Government should state categorically what their policy is. As we all know, there has been a considerable increase during the last year in the number of T.T. and attested herds, and I think we all realise that it is essential that the numbers should continue to increase—and to increase even more rapidly in the future.

If we look at the Report of the Committee on Milk Distribution (Cmd. 7414), we see two important recommendations, both in paragraph 75 of the Report. The first is that: As an ultimate objective compulsory heat-treatment should be applied to all milk sold for liquid consumption, except milk consumed in remote and thinly-populated areas.… The second recommendation which occurs in the same paragraph is that until compulsory heat treatment can be applied generally, raw T.T. milk should be permitted to be sold in any area.

Do His Majesty's Government agree with both those recommendations?—that is, is their policy in the future to be that all milk, whether T.T. or not, should be pasteurised?

There are some 46,000 producer retailers in England and Wales, and the majority of these have to decide now whether or not they will arrange for their milk to be pasteurised, or whether they will try to produce T.T. milk. The same problem faces all producers who are not already producing T.T. milk, though it does not affect them quite so directly. If the Government accept the proposal that all milk should eventually be pasteurised, what encouragement will there be for anyone to pay more for T.T. milk which has been pasteurised? After all, T.T. milk is not necessarily of better quality. It is merely free from the germ of bovine tuberculosis, although, of course, it may contain other germs. Of the T.T. milk sold off farms in England and Wales in 1947, only 36 per cent. was sold to the consumer as such. If all milk in populous areas is pasteurised, I cannot see how it will be possible to retain, let alone to increase, the market of T.T. milk in those areas.

I realise that this threat will not materialise in the immediate future, but the eradication of tuberculosis in our cattle is necessarily a long-term process. If we are to have a healthy dairy herd in this country, it is essential that the diseases such as tuberculosis, contagious abortion and mastitis should be eradicated as quickly as possible. It is essential that all producers should know where they stand, and what is the long-term view of the Government on this subject. How do they propose to eradicate these diseases, the eradication of which, though ultimately profitable, can involve a very serious initial expense? I believe that a statement of policy, and possibly early legislation to achieve these objects, is a necessary complement to this Bill, although I agree that the Leader of the House did say much on the subject of clean milk to relieve one's anxiety.

So far as the Bill itself is concerned, there are obviously several points which will have to be inquired into at a later stage. One of the chief points appears in Clause 6, which has to-day been dealt with by the Leader of the House. The other question is with regard to bottling at the same place as the pasteurisation, which was included in the Government statement of policy on July 31, 1946. That also is causing a certain amount of concern to the distributors, and it has been referred to by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. I feel that, in spite of these things, we must support any measure which will increase the safety of milk for our population.

5.7 p.m.

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL)

My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House, when he introduced this Bill, said that he regarded it as a long-deferred or long-overdue reform. I think that description has been accepted in every part of the House, and it was this reforming spirit which was behind the speeches of all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I am indeed grateful to all noble Lords for their support for the principle of this measure.

The need for the improvement in our milk supply is not, I think, denied by any responsible person, here or outside; and every noble Lord who has taken part in this discussion has emphasised the great and absolute urgency of cleaner and safer milk. We all realise the serious effect which the drinking of contaminated milk has already had upon the health of the country. I think that, by now, every one of us is painfully familiar with the toll taken by bovine tuberculosis in the loss of life and life-long physical deformity. This, of course, diminishes nothing from the truth of the assertion of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, that the vast majority of all cases of tuberculosis in human beings have a human and not a bovine source. Of course, to the toll of bovine tuberculosis must be added the many serious illnesses and infections caused by other milk-borne diseases.

We can prevent the continuation of these conditions only by safeguarding the public from the sale of any raw milk which may have picked up disease germs, whether from a sick animal or by contacts. The extent of the danger, which will continue so long as this type of milk remains on the market, can be judged by the amount of such milk which still reaches the consumer. Many figures have been bandied about, and the following are the only figures which I shall inflict on the House. The estimated figures of sales by retailers of liquid milk for the year ended September 30, 1948, show that in England and Wales 117,000,000 gallons of T.T. or certified milk were sold; 900,000,000 gallons of pasteurised or heat-treated milk were sold; and approximately 167,000,000 gallons of undesignated milk came on the market. The figures for Scotland under the same three heads are 20,000,000 gallons, 91,000,000 and 21,000,000 gallons. These figures show—and everyone accepts this—that a very large quantity of undesignated raw milk is being drunk every year in every part of England, Scotland and Wales, and that the amount of this unsafe milk still exceeds the amount of T.T. milk drunk in England and Wales. I am afraid that even in Scotland, although the record is a good deal better, the consumption of undesignated raw milk wins by a short head.

The noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has already said that we are not wedded to any one way of improving our milk supply. We are just as anxious as preceding Governments have been to use any method of serving this purpose, and the best of these methods were described in the White Paper which set out the policy of the Coalition Government in 1943. I am particularly glad—if I may be allowed to express my personal feelings—having been a member of the Government that laid down this policy, to be now a humble instrument in putting the policy into legislative effect. Your Lordships will remember that in this White Paper we dealt with four main ways of attaining the objective of a safer and clearer supply of milk. The first of these ways was the cleaning up of our dairy herds; the second was the improvement and unification of standards of administration; the third was the offering of financial inducements for the production of T.T. milk; and the fourth was the granting of powers to the Minister of Food to schedule areas in which milk can be sold only if it conforms to the safety standards.

The present Bill deals with the fourth of these methods of ensuring a better milk supply. Its emphasis on pasteurisation does not mean that we attach any less importance to the other methods set out in the White Paper. I can accept the first principle enunciated by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, when he said, quoting some words from the White Paper, that "the basis of a sound milk policy is a well-bred, healthy dairy herd." I should like to illustrate what I have said, in order to show that we are practising what we preach, and that we are not trying to advance on one front only—or on one leg or by some strange method of locomotion in which a horse was somehow connected with a cart. Apart from what has been done in the past, I can inform the House now that discussions with the National Veterinary Medical Association on plans for the eradication of tuberculosis on an area basis are about to take place very soon indeed. But I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, who speaks with such unrivalled authority on this subject, put the point strongly that we cannot wait until the herds are cleaned up before liquid milk for human consumption is rendered safe to the public health; prompt action is demanded.

That is all I have to say in a general way, but I should like to make one or two observations about two clauses which contain some very important provisions of the Bill. My noble friend has touched on them but I may perhaps be excused if I add a little. The first point deals with Clause 5. I should like to make it clear that the Minister's powers under Clause 5 to make an order to apply the Bill to a specified area will not be used hurriedly, without due regard to local conditions or without the fullest consultation with any local organisation who may wish to express their views.

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE

May I interrupt the noble Earl? Could he indicate what will be the "appropriate organisation"? It appears to be entirely at the Minister's discretion to choose those organisations whom he himself will consult.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

These are representative organisations. It is the intention to consult the National Farmers' Union, representative associations of local authorities, town and county authorities and so one—all representative bodies who deal with communities whose interests will be affected by the Bill. That is the intention, and it is laid down in Clause 5.

EARL DE LA WARR

May I ask who are the local organisations who will be concerned? Some of these problems are not only local, and it is important for the Minister to satisfy himself that he is consulting a representative local body.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

The local organisations are not specified in the terms of Clause 5. I was really addressing myself to the elucidation of that clause. I appreciate what the noble Earl says and I know it will be appreciated by the Department.

LORD LLEWELLIN

When we were planning milk rounds and such things we consulted organisations of local milk retailers, who are very important people from this point of view. Will they be consulted?

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

That is another body which will certainly be borne in mind when the question of consulting local interests affected arises. The intention is that the Bill will become operative by stages, at different times in different parts of the country, the safe milk area being gradually extended throughout a number of years. The Bill will first be applied to groups of large urban centres of population which can be conveniently grouped in the same neighbourhood. It will come into effect later, as circumstances permit, in country districts where the problem of safe milk is much more difficult. Before any area is specified, a complete survey will be made of the available pasteurisation facilities in that area. If they are insufficient to deal with the non-designated raw milk sold in a particular area, the distributors will first be asked to increase their pasteurising plant, and the producer-retailers will be invited to up-grade their milk to T.T. standard, or alternatively to arrange for it to be pasteurised. Only when this survey has been made and after the Minister has been satisfied that an area has sufficient pasteurising equipment to deal with its non-designated milk will an order under the Bill come into force. Owing to the shortage of milk plant and the delay in putting up suitable new buildings at the present time it is likely that twelve or eighteen months will elapse from the passing of the Bill before any area will be ripe for specification.

EARL DE LA WARR

Will the order be an affirmative one?

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

The provision of the Bill is for a negative order, but that is a point I will consider in consultation with the Department. I appreciate what the noble Earl said in his speech about his preference for an affirmative order as against a negative order.

It should be remembered that although the manufacture of dairy machinery is steadily expanding, 40 per cent. of its output is still for export. As time passes, a larger share of its production will be allocated to the home market. Nevertheless, it is not expected that all urban areas will have sufficient pasteurising facilities for the Bill to be applied there in less than five years, while rural areas are expected to take not less than ten years before the whole country is guaranteed against unsafe milk.

I should like to make one other point before I sit down. It is a point that has not yet been made, but it is one which is of considerable interest and importance to all who, like the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, regard milk as being almost the staff of life. The operation of this Bill, by making a supply of safe milk available for all consumers, should encourage and increase the consumption of milk, which everyone agrees is the best of all foodstuffs. The consumption of milk per head at the present time in this country is considerably less than the dieticians consider desirable. That is a statement with which I know the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, will heartily agree. The average amount consumed at the moment is 0.65 pint per person per day. Adults may drink less, and children may drink more, but it works out at an average of 0.65 pint per day. Experts recommend an average consumption of at least one pint for every person per day, which would mean a stepping-up of the present amount of milk drunk by all sections of the community. A larger supply of safe milk, in which people will have complete confidence, should certainly help to raise consumption nearer to the recommended average level. If it is important that everyone should drink more milk, it is even more important that more milk should be drunk by those who need it most—namely, growing children.

At the present time, as noble Lords who live in the country are well aware, some medical officers of health, mainly in rural areas, have refused to give authority for the use of raw milk, other than T.T. milk, in the elementary schools. The number of children affected is, of course, small, compared with the number of children in towns who are already supplied with pasteurised milk. But when safe milk is available everywhere, the consumption of milk by school children is certain to rise in those areas where at present doctors are unwilling to run the risk of authorising the use of raw milk, other than T.T. milk. In conclusion, I should like to thank the noble Lords very warmly for the support they have given to the principle of the Bill, and for the encouragement which we have received from their response to it. I would say to those noble Lords whose points I have not answered that I will examine them carefully between now and Committee stage, when, in the light of my consultations with the appropriate Department, I hope to answer them more fully, and indeed more accurately, than I should do if I endeavoured to answer on the spur of the moment.

5.23 p.m.

LORD TEVIOT

My Lords, I shall detain your Lordships' House for only a few moments. I did not know that the noble Earl was going to get up when he did, otherwise I should have jumped up in front of him so that he could have answered my points. I take a strong view about milk, because of which I am probably known as a bit of a "crank." I welcome this Bill most heartily, having had a small herd of dairy cows for a great many years. But let me put it to your Lordships in this way. My view is that milk was never meant by nature to be drunk by anybody. If your Lordships think of it for a moment; the calf, after it has been suckled, never drinks milk again. In the case of animals, after the young have been suckled and weaned, they do not drink milk any more. In my view, that is what nature intended. In my view, milk is a very dangerous food indeed, even after pasteurisation. We know of the celebrated case in Belfast where there was once an immense increase of tuberculosis. What did they find? They found that there was a tuberculosis carrier working in the pasteurisation plant, distributing tuberculosis germs in the milk all the time. You may produce milk from clean herds; you may do everything in your power to get the milk to the consumer in a perfect state in a bottle. You take the cork or the stopper out of the bottle, you pour the milk into a jug, and, within a very few moments, if there are microbes about which are dangerous to human existence, the milk will pick them up.

My suggestion—and I hope that the Minister of Health will take heed of it, to see whether something cannot be done in these terms—is that the milk, having been produced and being perfectly healthy, is put into a bottle from which it cannot be poured. Let me visualise someone going into the dining room for a cup of tea. A bottle of milk is placed on the table. You cannot pour the milk out; you give the bottle a squeeze, out comes the milk, and then the bottle is automatically hermetically sealed. That is one way in which one can be certain that milk will not pick up these evil germs. I have a Guernsey herd, and I once had a Jersey herd. I have often been over to the Island to buy my bulls. Everybody who has been over there knows perfectly well that, although there is no tuberculosis in their herds, the people there suffer a great deal from tuberculosis. As has already been said, the reason for that is that the infection is carried from one person to another, very materially through the milk. One pours out milk into a jug, and the milk can immediately pick up germs. The noble Lord opposite always laughs at me, but to me this idea is just commonsense. I hope that serious consideration will be given to the question of the distribution of milk and the method by which it is handled. I still adhere to my view that milk was never meant to be drunk by anybody. It is not drunk by any animal after its suckling and weaning. I believe that, if we followed their example, then we should get rid of tuberculosis throughout the world.

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