HL Deb 08 February 1949 vol 160 cc599-607

4.35 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON)

My Lords, I am very glad indeed that this Bill has had such a favourable reception from all sides of the House. I think we all, irrespective of Party, wish to see clean milk distributed far and wide throughout the country, and, as a whole, I think we are also genuinely agreed that this Bill is a step in the right direction. I have looked into one or two points which arose on the Report stage of the Bill, and if I may I should just like to answer one or two questions to clarify certain matters. The first was on a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, who seemed rather anxious as to whether the words in the Government Amendment would sufficiently protect a vendor who sold milk to a person who might improperly use the milk in the course of his business as a caterer. The words in question were, "reasonable cause to believe." I have examined those words carefully, and I am given to understand that they would provide a perfectly adequate defence for a vendor in that position. In fact, the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl would be much more onerous than the Government Amendment. On those grounds I hope the noble Earl will be satisfied.

There was one other point which was more substantial, and which raised a certain number of questions, especially during the Second Reading of the Bill. Many noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, the noble Lord, Lord Amherst, and others were very naturally worried over it. The point was that while we are promoting the sale of clean milk all over the country, it is extremely important that we should never lose sight of the ultimate aim of getting pure, disease-free milk from the cow itself. In other words, we must continue with our policy of up-grading the herds. That is extremely important. In view of the interest which was shown by so many noble Lords on that occasion, I thought it might interest your Lordships to know of some of the provisions proposed to be inserted in the new Milk (Special Designations) (Raw Milk) Regulations which, as announced during the Committee stage on January 27, it is now planned to bring into operation on October 1 next.

It is proposed that no application for a licence to sell milk under the special designation "tuberculin tested" received after September 30, 1950, will be considered unless the herd is attested, and that existing T.T. licences will be terminated on September 30, 1952, if the herd has not by then become attested. Thus, we shall gradually secure that all milk sold under the special designation "tuberculin tested" comes from attested herds. It will also have been noticed that in Clause 4, subsection (1), of this Bill we are making the special designation "accredited" an obsolescent one, so far as the specified areas are concerned. This proposal will be applied to the whole of the country under the new Regulations to which I have referred. This will mean that from October 1, 1954, onwards, the only raw milk that can be sold under a special designation in England and Wales will be tuberculin-tested milk from attested herds. Ample notice is being given of the change in order that farmers may have plenty of time to upgrade their production to T.T. standard; and it is earnestly hoped that the support of the whole of the House for these measures will be forthcoming.

Finally, I should like to stress that this Bill will achieve its objects without undue hardship or discrimination. I think, also, that it will benefit everybody. It will benefit the consumer, because he will be getting a supply of pure milk which should lead to the increased consumption of milk; it will benefit the dairyman, because he will be sure of delivering and of dealing in a pure product; and it will benefit the producer because for the first time he can be certain that his milk is receiving adequate and proper treatment with the care which it deserves. I believe that, in the light of all these considerations, it is a worth-while effort which we are making with this Bill. I suggest that the time we have spent on this Bill has been well spent, and that the Amendments which have been passed are extremely valuable ones. I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a speedy Third Reading, so that we may send it on its journey to another place. I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.

Moved, that the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

4.43 p.m.

LORD TEVIOT

My Lords, I should like to say a word more on the subject which I raised on the Second Reading of the Bill. I welcome this Bill, particularly in view of what the noble Lord has just said. But my anxiety is that from the moment this pure milk is delivered at the door, the danger period begins—and that state of things will continue, unless something is done to alter the present system. I have been having a look at bottles of milk delivered at the doors of consumers. The other day I was visiting a friend who has been rather jocular about some of the things I said in this House on the Second Reading. As I drove up to his door I saw a bottle of milk standing there. The stopper was in the bottle, but the milk was oozing out at the top; it was rather a windy day and there were specks of dust settling on the milk. Your Lordships will appreciate from such an example that all the good that has been done in providing supplies of T.T. milk can be undone in the course of the transport of the milk. Harmful germs may be in the air, or in the dust that settles in the tops of these bottles. My desire is to remove that danger to the health of the consumers.

We all know that milk when poured out into jugs—which may or may not be too clean—and stood perhaps anywhere in the house until the jug is empty, is liable to pick up any germs that are about; moreover it is unlikely, if it is left standing for a time, to be so clean as when it arrives at the house. I feel that a great deal can be done to eliminate this danger. There are many people who are interested in this subject and who realise the danger. One of these persons has invented a special stopper, and has communicated with me. I have arranged to discuss the matter with the appropriate officer of the Ministry of Food and in due course, should he take the view that it is worth investigating, I will put him in touch with the inventor. (I ought to say that I have no interest personally in this invention.) The new bottle, if this invention were adopted, would be the same as the existing one; but if this very simple apparatus works, then, when the bottle was standing, the milk would not be getting any contact with the air; when the bottle was turned up to pour out the milk the amount required would come through the stopper; when the bottle was replaced on end it would become sealed again. The difficulty, of course, is to get a stopper that is satisfactory in every way. This particular one is made of very inexpensive material and would probably outlast the bottle.

I understand that the life of a milk bottle is, roughly speaking, forty fillings, after which, because of rough usage or other reasons, it is of no further use. It seems to me that if we were to replace the bottles after forty fillings, we should gradually arrive at a satisfactory type of bottle without any great expense. But even if there is some expense to begin with, it will be well worth while if we can reduce to an absolute minimum the danger of milk picking up any injurious microbes or germs at the end, so to speak, of its life—that is, the moment before it is used by the consumer. I hope that the Government will pay attention to this matter. I am not satisfied that we have got so far as we can in the elimination of the danger of infection from milk after the bottle has been opened. I hope the Government will investigate this matter, for I feel sure it will be to the general benefit, particularly to the benefit of children. I welcome the Bill as being a great step in the right direction.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

My Lords, the Committee stage of the previous Bill went through with such rapidity that I was not in my place at the beginning of this discussion, when, I understand, the noble Earl referred to the Amendments which I raised on Report stage of the Bill. I do not pretend to be an expert in these matters, but those who advise me—the National Farmers' Union—still feel that, under Clause 1 as it stands at present, far greater hardship will be imposed upon the producer-retailers. During the previous stage of the Bill, the noble Earl admitted that there would be hardship. The National Farmers' Union believe that the hardship that will be inflicted upon those persons is much greater than the noble Earl makes out. I hope that, before the Bill goes to another place, the noble Earl will give these people an opportunity of discussing these points with him or with the Minister, so that this hardship, which I am sure the noble Earl is just as keen to remove as I am, will be mitigated as far as possible. That also refers to the Amendment which I moved to Clause 2. The National Farmers' Union feel that the Amendment which the noble Earl moved in respect of caterers does not go quite far enough and does not covet the point which was contained in my Amendment. I hope the noble, Earl will discuss that matter with them also before the Bill passes to another place.

4.51 p.m.

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, before the Bill leaves this House, I should like to add one or two words. First, I think we have improved it considerably in various respects while it has been passing through this House. I am certain that the noble Earl will accede to the request just made by my noble friend behind me, that people in his Department should discuss with the National Farmers' Union the two points raised by the noble Earl on Report stage. In regard to the first point, I think there is still some way in which it might be met. In regard to the second, the Government put down an Amendment to meet a point we had made on Committee stage in this Bill—namely, whether a man had reasonable cause to believe that the conditions specified in paragraphs (a) or (b) of Clause 2 (3) were satisfied. I think one of the conditions is that the man was a caterer. If he had reasonable grounds to think that he was a caterer, I should have thought that no court could convict him under this Bill. In fact, at the time when the Amendment was offered to us, I thought it fully met the point that had not been covered in the Bill as it originally came before this House. In regard to the first question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, however, I believe that indeed there is still something to be met.

There is one point I did not quite understand when the noble Earl, the Parliamentary Secretary, was talking to us. So far as I could understand, he said he thought that this measure would increase the consumption of milk. Much more milk would be consumed to-day if the milking system were adequate. It does not need this Bill to raise the consumption of milk. It needs more dairy herds providing more milk, because a great deal more milk could and would be consumed in this country to-day were it available. Moreover, were more milk available, we could (and I hope that within the next year we shall) get back to making some of our old-established cheeses. It may not be quite relevant to this Bill, but I think I shall just be in order when I point out that, if we do not do that soon, the skill of the cheese-maker will be lost and one of our best agricultural industries—that of making really good cheeses—will be lost, perhaps for ever.

The huge requirements of carrying supplies for the Services with which I had to contend when I was Minister of Food are now, of course, nothing like so large, and I hope that we shall be able to allow cheesemakers a certain amount of milk during the flush months when the new grass comes. As the noble Earl well knows, there is more milk than is really necessary for six weeks or two months during the early part of the year. I hope that some of that milk will go into the making of cheese which, after all, does not need to be put into the bottles that have been so admirably described to us by my noble friend behind me. Incidentally, I should like to see one of these bottles before I speak in its favour. A bottle into which the air cannot get unless it is in a certain position may be a more difficult bottle to clean, and the cleansing of bottles is most important if one is to ensure a clean milk supply.

I hope that as a result of this Bill we shall obtain a greater increase of attested herds in this country. That is the direction in which both the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture should press forward for the improvement of our milk supply. Do not let us be content with the second best, which is pasteurisation. The best is T.T. milk, properly and cleanly bottled on the farm. In that we get the full nourishment of the milk which nature meant calves to have and which we people have adopted for drinking as well. No calf was ever meant to have pasteurised milk. I maintain that the unpasteurised but pure milk from a T.T. herd is far better than any pasteurised milk. I hope that by the provisions of this Bill a larger number of producer-retailers will be encouraged to tip-grade their herds and provide T.T. milk for the consumers, rather than to go in for the purchase of expensive pasteurisation plant. I think that this Bill will carry us a step forward, at any rate in that respect, which to my mind is the better way. I hope that this Bill will be a great success and that, as a result of it, we shall get far more T.T. herds in this country in the future than we have at the present time.

4.59 p.m.

LORD CHARNWOOD

My Lords, I rise with great diffidence because I am neither a bacteriologist nor a dietician. However, I am advised that one of the provisions of this Bill will make it impossible in some areas, including London, to buy raw milk which is not T.T. Like everybody who has spoken, I am anxious to see more T.T. milk available, and I wish to remind His Majesty's Government that there is a danger in pasteurised milk. All our recent statistics and research work show the enormous difference in resistance to disease between breast-fed babies and bottle-fed babies. Particularly is this striking in the American figures. It is important to remember that the American figures of bottle-fed babies all relate to pasteurised milk. I think it is dangerous to compel pasteurisation without a greater knowledge than we possess at this moment.

5.0 p.m.

LORD QUIBELL

My Lords, I have spoken once or twice in this House regarding the pasteurisaltion of milk, and what I have heard today has made me more convinced than ever that I ought to repeat one or two of the things I have mentioned before. When the Opposition and the Government front Benches agree on anything, I think we on the back Benches ought to consider our position and decide what we should do. For that reason, I think that those people who are not here to speak for themselves ought to have some representative in this House to speak on their behalf. I consider that there was a complete answer so far as the pasteurisation of milk is concerned—and I am not without some experience.

What is the use of having an up-to-date herd with dirty, filthy shippons that are not fit to be seen? My general complaint against the Ministry, in two Governments, has been their failure to carry out the provisions of the Cowsheds and Dairies Acts, and to compel the shippons to be modernised so that they can be properly cleansed. There are some that I have been to particularly, as I mentioned once before, those on one estate in North Wales where there are seventy farms, not one of which you could enter without wearing a pair of rubber boots. Milk is the best food that we can produce in this country. How to get over this difficulty of unclean milk, say the Ministry and their advisers, is to take the dirt out of it. But in my view, it should never have been allowed to get into it—in other words, that both the herd and the shippons should have been cleaned up.

This talk of pasteurisation is just a lazy excuse by responsible officials for not carrying out the provisions of Acts that have been passed, in this and in the other House, in regard to the cleaning up of herds and shippons. If in the future they are to remain in the same condition as they have been in the past, and no more strenuous effort is made to clean them up, then this will not be the last Bill with which we shall be confronted respecting this problem of clean milk. I have seen the dirt taken out after pasteurisation. I have seen nearly half a bucketful taken out of a plant in one day. I am perfectly certain that it ought never to have been in it, and that it need not have been there.

We too readily think we have done a big job when a Bill leaves this House and goes to another place, and then becomes an Act of Parliament. But really the job is just commencing. It is the enforcement of its provisions and its efficient administration that matter more than anything else. Adequate discussion, in order to make proper provisions in the first place, before a Bill is introduced, followed then by efficient administration, is more important than constantly having new Bills and regulations. Are we trying to find more offences of which people can be found guilty? I think it is about time there were fewer offences to commit, instead of more. I do not know how some of these farmers can cope with the situation at the moment. There are people I know well who find it impossible to comply with many of the regulations that are made.

We should not only clean up the herds and the shippons but we should also see to it that proper water supplies are taken to these places. That is not unimportant. On one of the big farms that I know, there is no water supply at all. Everything runs down a spouting into the paddock from all the stables and shippons, and then into a pond in a grazing field from which all the beasts have to drink. That farm is in Wales, but this also applies to some parts of England. If I were to take the Minister (whom I am pleased to see here to-day) to see some of these places, I think he would be shocked at the conditions under which milk is produced. The only thing one can say is that pasteurisation is a sort of safety valve. It does nothing else but knock the milk about in such a fashion that it cannot be recognised as milk. Every man or woman of common sense knows that a pint of milk taken under proper conditions from a clean cow is the finest food that one can possibly have, and I say that in the main the only people who will be pleased about pasteurisation will be some of the "cranks" calling themselves doctors and those who manufacture the machinery.

On Question, Bill read 3a; Amendments (Privilege) made. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.