HL Deb 27 January 1949 vol 160 cc355-78

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

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clause 1:

Use of special designation on retailing of milk (otherwise than as refreshment) in specified areas, and on certain associated sales.

(2) The use of a special designation shall be obligatory also for the purpose of a sale of milk by retail for human consumption (other than a catering sale), notwithstanding that the place of sale is not in a specified area, if the milk is delivered from an establishment (whether in or outside a specified area) where there is carried on a business of selling milk which includes any sales for the purpose of which the use of a special designation is obligatory by virtue of the preceding subsection.

(3) The preceding subsections shall not apply to the selling of milk as therein mentioned by a producer of milk from cows to persons employed by him in or in connection with such production or employed by him otherwise in agriculture, if he does not engage in any other selling of milk as mentioned in those subsections

(6) It shall be the duty of every Food and Drugs authority within their area, and of every local authority in Scotland within their area, to carry into execution and enforce the provisions of this section.

4.7 p.m.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (2), to omit "where there is carried on a business of selling milk which includes" and to insert: at which there is produced, handled or stored, any milk which without being subjected to any process is used for The noble Lord said: Before I move my Amendment, may I say how glad we are to see the noble Earl back with us after his enforced absence through illness? This Amendment has one simple object. Where a man has a dairy outside one of these specified areas, he may well want to sell some of his milk outside, and some of it within, the specified area. It is clear that if he sells any milk within the specified area it must be designated milk. My Amendment would in no way affect that. He may well produce the milk at his dairy, send it to a processing plant, probably within the specified area, where it would be heat treated, and it would then be sold quite properly as designated milk. But it is important that because such a man sells some of his milk in the specified area, he should not be prevented from continuing to trade outside the specified area, in the same way as competitors who are outside the specified area and who, therefore, are not required to have any of their milk heat-treated or made into designated milk.

That is the simple reason why I move this Amendment. Whether it is in quite the right terms I do not know, but I think noble Lords on all sides of the Committee will realise that a man ought to be allowed to do what I suggest; and I believe he will not be allowed to do so if the terms of the Bill remain as they are. If I am right in those contentions, I suggest that my words, or some other words which meet the point, should be inserted. For those reasons I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 7, leave out from ("area") to ("any") in line 8 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Llewellin.)

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

Before discussing this Amendment, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his very kind words in greeting me on my return to the House. I can assure him that I am very glad to be back myself.

The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has been very lucid and reasonable in moving this Amendment and, in consequence, I am sorry to have to say that I must resist it. I want your Lordships to look at this case not with an eye to specified areas as islands scattered about the country, but rather as a flowing flood, a tide coining in gradually to cover the whole country. We do not intend to put down isolated areas and leave them, but gradually to extend them so that eventually they cover the whole of England, Wales and Scotland. If we look at it from that point of view, it does seem desirable that we should encourage the consumption of designated or T.T. milk, whether inside or outside a specified area.

I suggest to your Lordships that if a producer retailer who lives outside a specified area is sending his milk into an area for heat treatment, surely it would not be much trouble, in the majority of cases, for him to distribute heat-treated milk, whether he is distributing inside or outside the area. If a large part of the milk has to be heat treated, why not treat all of it and distribute it when treated, so that the population on either side of the border, so to speak, get the advantage? There is another and perhaps even more important point involved. For administrative reasons—or rather, shall we say, for the proper enforcement of this provision—it would be extremely difficult to allow a farmer to have some of his milk heat treated and some which was not. The only way you can find that out, or prove your case against a man who is selling milk wrongly, is by finding his lorry on the road and taking a sample to see whether it is heat treated. If he always had the answer: "Yes, but the sample you have taken I am bringing back into the unspecified area where I am selling it," it would be almost impossible to catch him. You would always meet that defence: that the particular milk you had found which was not heat treated would be milk that he was going to deliver, at some time, in the unspecified area. I hope your Lordships will appreciate the force of the argument, and that I can persuade the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am not quite convinced by the noble Earl. He talked about the tide that was starting in one area, which he hoped would flow over the whole country so that in course of time—as I think most of us hope—the whole country will be getting T.T. or some better milk. But it is just a question of how the tide is to flow. If nearly everybody is to be affected by the tide, it is a different matter from saying that the tide at the moment is going to affect some people more adversely than their neighbours. I am instancing the case of a man who has his dairy and his herd outside the specified area. Let us assume he has not a heat treatment plant of his own; therefore he has to send a portion of his milk to some other place for treatment, and that place will probably be within a specified area. In such an instance he would presumably have to send all his milk there and bring some of it back after heat treatment to be distributed in the unspecified area. On the other hand, the farmer who has a holding next door and who sells no milk in the specified area need not have any of his milk heat processed and so can compete on extremely favourable lines with his neighbour, who because he sells some of his milk in a specified area has to have the whole of his milk heat treated, whether sold in the specified area or not. By all means let us have specified areas, let us enlarge the facilities for getting this cleaner milk, but do not let us do it in such a way that one man is penalised as against his neighbour.

With regard to the noble Earl's point about milk in a lorry, in the case I have in mind the non-heat treated milk would never go into the specified area in the lorry at all. The farmer would be sending into the specified area only milk for heat treatment; any milk which is in the lorry and which is intended for sale by retail in the specified area would, of course, have to be heat treated, whether my Amendment is carried or not. I would ask the noble Earl to look at this point again between now and the Report stage, to see whether there is not something we can do to meet this kind of case. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.15 p.m.

LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (3) after "selling" (where that word last occurs) to insert "at the place where the milk is produced." The noble Lord said: This is a small Amendment, but it is one which I think the noble Earl may be able to accept. My reason for saying that is that there are many farmers—I know several myself—who sell designated milk in their own shops and dairies in a specified area, but at the same time supply their own shopmen and farmworkers with milk. I am advised that the proviso at the end of subsection (2) prohibits them from doing that. Therefore the unfortunate farmworkers and shopmen would have to go to some other farm to buy their milk. I think the noble Earl would agree that that would be a very unfortunate and indeed an almost absurd state of affairs, which I am sure is not his intention or the intention of the Government. It may be that the words I have employed are not acceptable and that the noble Earl can provide better. I am concerned only to get something done to meet this point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 15, after ("selling") insert ("at the place where the milk is produced.")—(Lord Cranworth.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

Again I think this is an Amendment which has been put very reasonably, but there are certain difficulties about it. It is quite true, as the noble Lord said, that as the Bill stands, if a farmer who is outside the specified area should sell milk to his employees, and it was neither T.T. nor heat treated milk, he would be committing an offence. If a farmer is himself heat treating his milk, or is having it heat treated elsewhere why should he not sell that treated milk to his own farmworkers? Why should we exclude the farmworker from getting good clean milk? It was because of this consideration that the Bill was framed in such a manner that the farmworker and his family might get the advantage of clean milk. However, one recognises that there might be extremely difficult cases involving isolated farms, and in order to deal with them Clause 3 allows the Minister to make exemptions from these provisions. There would otherwise obviously be some hardship in such cases. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord, and that he will withdraw his Amendment.

LORD CRANWORTH

I thank the noble Earl for his reply, but could he tell me what the procedure would be for the farmer who wished to continue supplying his own men with milk? I am not very impressed with the idea that he should take it away and, having pasteurised his milk—which, after all, is a somewhat moot point—then have to take it back to them at the end of the day and provide them with it. I think that is a clumsy procedure. I am glad to see that the noble Earl recognises that. What would be the method of using Clause 3? Would the producer have to apply to the Ministry or elsewhere for a special licence?

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

Yes; the producer would have to apply to the Ministry for a special licence which would exempt him from having to supply his employees with designated milk. I realise that it is a little cumbersome—

LORD CRANWORTH

Do you not think that putting these few words in would save much paper, postage and trouble?

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I think that the words as put down would in any case open the door too wide. However, without committing my right honourable friend, we would be agreeable to looking at this point to see if we could not reach some agreement.

LORD LLEWELLIN

There can be a number of cases where the farmer will have his own heat treatment plant, as is recognised in the Bill. It seems rather absurd to take the milk somewhere else, and then bring it back. I think one knows what will happen on most farms. The people who have been milking the cows will take the milk out of the buckets in any event, whether there is an application to the Minister or not. Therefore, I think it would be a good thing to try to find some suitable words between now and Report stage.

LORD CRANWORTH

I thank the noble Earl for the consideration that he is to give to the matter. I shall hope for the best, and beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved, to add to subsection (4): (c) to a caterer as defined in this Act. The noble Lord said: This is a simple Amendment. It seeks to add a sale to a caterer to the sales by retail under Clause 1 (4). The real reason for this Amendment is an Amendment which we shall reach later, upon Clause 6, which is to be moved by the noble Earl. Clause 6 (2) says that the Minister may either buy the milk to be treated and re-sell it other than by retail. This Amendment is to ensure that a sale to a caterer is covered as a retail sale. I do not think at the moment that it is so. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 25, at end insert ("(c) to a caterer as defined in tins Act").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I agree with the spirit of this Amendment, but I think it is covered under Clause 2, which deals specifically with catering sales. If the noble Lord will examine that clause, he will find the case is fully covered.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I have examined it with my advisers. I understand that they were not quite happy that it was covered. Perhaps between now and Report stage we could make sure that this case is covered.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

Certainly.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after subsection (4) to insert as a new subsection: (5) Nothing in the said regulations shall prohibit milk which has been processed at one licensed establishment from being bottled at another duly licensed establishment.

The noble Lord said: The reason for my moving this Amendment is that there is some concern whether the practice which at present obtains in a certain number of cases, that of processing the milk at one establishment and taking it (in properly sealed containers, of course) to another, where it is bottled, will still be allowed under these regulations. In the normal cases, of course, the milk is processed and bottled at the same place, but I am told that there are cases where the processed milk is taken in bulk before it is ultimately bottled. It is to ensure that, where that is properly done—and, as the noble Earl will see in my Amendment, I lay down that it must be processed at one duly licensed establishment and bottled at another duly licensed establishment—when the regulations are made that practice may be allowed, in appropriate cases, to continue. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 25, at end insert said new subsection.—(Lord Llewellin.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

The noble Lord has touched upon the chief difficulty here—namely, the transporting of milk from one establishment to another. My right honourable friend the Minister of Food is decidedly of the opinion that the only way to ensure the cleanliness of the milk is actually to process and bottle it on the same premises. Although, in theory, the greatest care might be taken with the milk, it would have to be treated, then put into containers of some kind, then transported to other premises, after which it has to be unloaded, put into other containers and re-bottled. In practice, it is going to be very difficult, in view of all those processes, to ensure that the milk is completely free from contamination. For that reason, we are aiming to get the heat treatment and bottling of milk carried out in the same building, so that contamination is not possible. It is recognised that that might lead to difficulties, particularly with the small men and people who are used to bottling their own milk upon their own premises. Therefore, the Minister is not only prepared to go into full consultation with all the interested parties before drafting any regulations, but he would assure the small men that there will be plenty of time in which to obtain the necessary equipment. In any case, it would be impossible to bring these regulations fully into force under three to five years. Therefore, there is a large margin and, even if the margin were not there, the Minister would give sympathetic consideration. But he feels that there is a big principle involved in this treating and bottling in the same process, as it were. For that reason, I hope the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Yes, I follow that. I think that the procedure outlined by the noble Earl would probably meet the case. I raised the question in this form in order to make the particular point quite clear. I presume that even if the whole scheme in an area comes in, say, in three or four years, there is still power under Clause 3, to which the noble Earl has already referred, for him to make an exception. It would be absurd to make an exception under that clause for the farm worker to get untreated milk, but I gather that under Clause 3 it will still be possible for the farmer, for a year or two, to continue to have his milk processed at one place and bottled at another. With that assurance from the noble Earl, which I hope will be recorded in Hansard—

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I quite agree.

LORD LLEWELLIN

—I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD KENNET moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "Food and Drugs" and insert "local." The noble Lord said: All the Amendments but one which stand in my name follow on. It may save time if I deal with all my Amendments while I am on this particular one. On the question of principle, it may seem rather fundamental, but the practical effect will not be so fundamental as it may seem. The purpose of this Amendment is to amend the Bill by relating the administration of its provisions, not to the food and drugs authorities but to the local authorities. I may say that this is an Amendment in which the Association of Municipal Corporations take a very keen interest.

I must tread a little gingerly, because of the extreme complexity of the statutory provisions, but the matter stands thus. The expression "food and drugs authority" includes all the county and county borough councils, and also such non-county boroughs and urban districts as had a population of at least 40,000 at the last census. The effect of making only them the authorities responsible for the enforcement of the Bill would be to deprive most county district councils (non-county boroughs, urban and rural districts) of their present powers relating to the control of persons who bottle and distribute designated milk. That, it is thought, would be an unfortunate provision—for a practical reason. It is not apparent why such a change in the existing state of affairs should be proposed, and the effect of this Amendment is only to maintain the status quo.

The unfortunate effect, it is suggested, would be (and I think there is some force attaching to it) that the local authorities (the county boroughs, the urban and rural district councils) would remain responsible for the regulation of dairymen and purveyors of milk and the enforcement of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, and the Milk and Dairies Order, 1926, but it would be the county and county borough councils, and only some of the borough and urban district councils, who would then become responsible for the enforcement of the provisions of this Bill. From that state of affairs it is feared that there would be very great administrative confusion. Its practical effect would be that different inspectors from different authorities would be visiting the same premises for closely allied purposes in connection with milk control. For instance, the position might arise in which a qualified sanitary inspector of a borough, or an urban or rural district council, would be responsible for supervising dairies except in respect of the designated milk, while an inspector of the county council, who might not be a qualified sanitary inspector, would deal with the designated milk.

In the matter of Clause 2, which refers to the catering authorities, it is apparent that there would be the same danger of confusion in the administration of the Act. In those circumstances, it is very warmly pressed that there should be no disturbance in the existing distribution of powers as regards the local authorities by what I may call, without any deroga- tary intention, an additional confusion to the present difficult state of the administration, and that the local authorities, and not the food and drug authorities, as the Bill proposes, should be responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 30, leave out ("Food and Drugs") and insert ("local").—(Lord Kennet.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, raises a very big question of principle on this clause, that of centralisation as opposed to decentralisation—whether one should try to administer a Bill of this sort by a few large authorities or, instead, vest the powers in the many local authorities throughout the country. I can assure the noble Lord that a great deal of consideration has been given to this matter, and on balance it was thought to be decidedly better to try to administer it through the bigger authorities. In point of fact, in Defence Regulation 55G, the responsibility has already been placed largely on the food and drugs authorities. That Regulation is to be suspended, and the Bill will take its place; so we are not bringing any new principle or any new machinery into operation in that respect. The reason why it is thought better to put responsibility into the hands of the larger authorities is chiefly for uniformity. It is hard to secure uniform administration of such an Act if it is to be widely diffused among many small authorities, rather than among a few main authorities who can effect a uniform administration throughout the country. There is one very pertinent point which was raised by the noble Lord—namely, that there might be difficulty of administration, but we intend to bring into operation shortly the Food and Drugs (Milk and Dairies) Act, 1944, which will take away many of these powers from the small authorities and place them with the food and drugs authorities; so we hope to work out a completely uniform administration and avoid any overlapping. In consideration of those points I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

LORD KENNET

The noble Earl will not be surprised to learn that the Association which I have already mentioned will not be reluctant to resist further centralisation. It is a matter of principle, but the noble Earl tells me that the matter has been considered and decided upon, and I cannot expect him, by an Amendment moved in your Lordships' House, to change a principle which has already been decided. I am glad to hear of the attention being given to this possibility of administrative confusion, and I hope the legislation which he intends to produce may have some effect in avoiding it. I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said on this occasion, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Use of special designation as regards sales in specified areas of milk or milk products as refreshments.

(3) Subject to the provisions of this Act, on a sale of milk to a caterer, being a sale for the purpose of which the use of a special designation would be obligatory by virtue of Section one of this Act if it were a sale by retail, the use of such a designation shall be obligatory, except where—

  1. (a) the caterer buys the milk with a view to subjecting it to a process to which milk is required to be subjected as a condition of the use of a special designation in connection therewith, and he is the holder of a licence authorising him to use that designation, or
  2. (b) the caterer buys the milk for the purposes of a business of his as a milk dealer or a manufacturer of milk products other than his business as a caterer.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved to add to subsection (3): Provided that the use of a special designation shall not be required in any case where the caterer gives the person who sells the milk an undertaking in writing or otherwise as the Minister may approve that he will comply with the aforesaid conditions stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection. The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the case where a person sells milk to a caterer. As the Bill is at present drafted, there are fears that a caterer who purchases the milk for one purpose might use or sell it for another, without subjecting it to a process. It is feared that if he did so, the retailer who sold him the milk would be liable to be held guilty of an offence under subsection (4). The proviso that I move is to ensure that this would not be the case. The simple matter that I wish to ensure is that the blame falls on the right man—that if the retailer has sold milk bona fide to a caterer, to be used for one of these purposes and the caterer does not so use it, and does not subject it to the necessary heat treatment, the retailer who sold the milk and has no control over it after it leaves his hands shall not be guilty of an offence under this Act, but that if anybody shall be liable it is the caterer who has misused the milk. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 13, at end insert the said new proviso.—(Lord Llewellin.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I am very glad to be able to agree in principle with the noble Lord on this point. When the Bill was drawn up, it was considered that under Section 83 of the Food and Drugs Act the vendor would be protected, but further examination has cast certain doubts upon that. If the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his Amendment now, we will look into it between now and Report, and although his words may not be quite acceptable I am sure that we can find others which would effect the same purpose.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am obliged to the noble Earl. That is, of course, the most I can ask. We both know what we want to do—to have the blame fall on the right man. I do not say my wording is right, and I have no doubt that the noble Earl, with the assistance of his draftsmen, will be able by Report stage to produce some words which will do what we both desire. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:

Areas for operation of preceding provisions

(2) Before making an order under this section the Minister shall consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit.

(3) The powers conferred on the Minister by this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and— (a) a draft of any statutory instrument bringing subsection (1) of Section one of this Act into operation in any area shall be laid before Parliament;

4.40 p.m.

LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (2) to omit "he thinks fit" and insert: satisfy him that they represent substantially the milk dealers and retailers of milk in the area to which the order is intended to apply. The noble Lord said: This little Amendment really signifies my dislike of autocracy whether it be in the hands of a Minister or anyone else. I consider that the use of the words "as he thinks fit" is putting a power into the hands of the Minister which is more than he ought to have, and the few words which I now seek to have inserted instead are meant to ensure that the people he consults shall be people who know what they are talking about. As this subsection in the Bill stands now, the Minister might consult anyone. Those whom he consulted might be excellent people and they might not. They might be excellent people and yet not the best people for him to consult in the circumstances. They might not be substantially representative of the trade. So, in the circumstances I would like to put some little brake on the autocracy of the Minister. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 21, leave out ("he thinks fit") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Cranworth.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I rise only to say that when we had these milk schemes in the war and we were dividing up areas with a view to saving labour, haulage, and so on—spliting up areas so that one retailer did not overlap another and thus saving man-power, the general use of petrol and other things—we always did what the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, by his Amendment would now have us do. Certainly, if I were still Minister of Food I would not object to the words which the noble Lord now suggests, because what they propose is what we always did and what any successful Minister of Food, I believe, will always do.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I agree absolutely with the noble Lord who has just spoken that it seems quite obvious that any Minister of Food would have to do this. No Minister would attempt to take action in this connection without consulting people who are properly representative of the trade. But is it really necessary to add these words which the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, suggests? Actually the wording used in this subsection is the same as that in the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. It has been transferred to this Bill. The only further point I would make on this matter is that although the Minister would obviously wish to consult fully with all interested parties, he would not particularly wish to be tied down to consult any particular person. Someone might claim to be consulted when he had not a reasonable claim, and if these words were accepted he would then be in a position to say: "You have not consulted me," and so raise difficulties. I wonder whether the noble Lord would not be satisfied, on second thoughts and in view of what I have said, that quite clearly the Minister, in practice, would always consult the appropriate people. The words of the Amendment would therefore be unnecessary.

LORD CRANWORTH

I would point out that if these people have not a reasonable claim to be the right people, they would not satisfy the Minister, unless he were a rather stupid person—which I am sure he would not be. Personally, I would much rather that the words of my Amendment were inserted in the Bill. I do not think that they would have a harmful effect, though I agree that they would be no very substantial check on the powers of the Minister. I hope that the noble Earl will allow the words to be inserted in the Bill.,

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

Perhaps we could look again at these words between now and the Report stage and work out something which will satisfy the noble Lord.

LORD CRANWORTH

I thank the noble Earl and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved to add to subsection (2): and shall not make an order that the said subsection (1) shall come into operation in a specified area unless he is satisfied after consultation that the requirements of the principal enactment or of this Act or of any order made thereunder with respect to the use of a special designation can within a reasonable time be complied with having regard to the facilities available to ensure delivery of milk under a special designation in that area in the ordinary course of trade.

The noble Lord said: It is obvious that there will be need for equipment and staff in an area before the scheme comes into operation, and one of the things which is equally clear is that if a mistake is made and areas are specified where that equipment and the other requirements I have mentioned are not available, a bad name will become attached to this new process for getting clean milk. It will get a bad name from the start because the operation of the scheme will break down. The object of my Amendment is to ensure that wherever this is tried it gets off to a good start and is not hustled in before the Minister is satisfied that plans are complete and the right plant is available so that the scheme may operate effectively from the beginning. It would be unfortunate if the scheme were to get a bad name as a result of it being brought in hurriedly under pressure in one area, before all the facilities were available to make it a success. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 22, at end, insert the said words.—(Lord Llewellin.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

There is, I am afraid, another reason why this Amendment would be unacceptable. I fully appreciate the noble Lord's remarks about the necessity, in starting a scheme of this kind, to start under the best possible conditions, with the plant and all the other things that are required. On the other hand, what we particularly want to avoid is that the specification of an area should be held up. It would be unfortunate if we were unable to proceed because, for example, a small number, a very few groups of people, could not or would not get the proper equipment. It is our desire to go ahead with the various areas without being delayed in this way, and, again using Clause 3, the Minister would be happy to give an assurance that the case of a small man or any particular case of hardship would be looked into. Where it was felt right, exemption could be granted. In other words, an area could be specified, but if there were genuine cases of hardship—if, for example, people were really unable to get the necessary equipment—they could for a time be exempted from the scheme under Clause 3. I hope that what I have said will satisfy the noble Lord and that he will not press this Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Yes, I think it does satisfy me. I was not looking at this so much from the point of view of a producer whose case might be one of genuine hardship—though I am very glad to learn that such people are going to be dealt with in the way which the noble Earl has mentioned. I was thinking mainly of the possibility of the breakdown of the milk supply in an area, which would mean that a certain number of consumers would not get their milk and then, quite rightly, there would be a row. If, as I understand, the main plant and the main facilities will all be assured in an area before any scheme is put into operation, and unfortunates who may be left lying by the wayside, as it were, are exempted, so that the consumer may still get his milk, I am satisfied. I am prepared to leave it at that and not to press this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved to add to paragraph (a) of subsection (3): and shall not take effect until it has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks merely to substitute affirmative procedure for negative procedure when orders are made under this Bill. This point was raised on the Second Reading by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, winding up the debate for the Government, said that he would look into the matter. I therefore hope that between Second Reading and now this has been looked into, and that the Government will be able to accept it.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I can assure the noble Lord that this has been very thoroughly considered, and both in the interests of the Department and of Parliament, I suggest that the procedure now suggested would be unwise. There will be some hundreds of Orders and if we insist upon affirmative Resolutions there will possibly be hundreds of debates. I think there would be a great waste of time, and Parliament can still keep an absolute control by means of negative resolution. If for any reason a specific Order were not approved, it could be prayed against and Parliament could stop it dead. I suggest to the noble Lord that it would be much better to keep to the negative procedure.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I feel that Orders made under this Act will vitally affect a large number of people—consumers, distributors and producers of milk—and I should have thought that this was a case where we might have had the affirmative procedure. But I shall not press this Amendment and beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6:

Power of the Minister to provide facilities for treatment of milk.

(2) Where the Minister provides facilities under this section he may either buy the milk to be treated and re-sell it after treatment or apply the treatment to milk of others.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved, in subsection (2), after "it" to insert: "otherwise than by retail." The noble Earl said: This Amendment meets a point raised by Lord Amherst of Hackney in the next Amendment. The words "otherwise than by retail" cover the whole question, and I hope they will satisfy the noble Lord. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 7, after ("it") insert ("otherwise than by retail").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I thank the noble Earl. I think this Amendment covers the point perfectly, and it does so in four words against twenty-six of mine.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8:

Breach of certain conditions of licences for specified areas to be punishable.

(2) This section applies to a licence held by a retailer for a specified area, that is to say, a licence authorising the use of a special designation held by a person carrying on a business which includes any sales which are sales for the purpose of which the use of a special designation is obligatory by virtue of this Act and are of milk in relation to which that licence authorises the use of a special designation.

(4) Milk (Special Designation) Regulations shall specify the authorities, whether local authorities or Food and Drugs authorities, by whom the provisions of this section are to be enforced as respects licences other than licences authorising the use of a special designation in relation to raw milk by the producer thereof or authorising the use of a special designation by a local authority.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved, in subsection (2), after "carrying on" to insert: at or from the establishment specified in the licence. The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to cover the case of a man who owns several shops in an area. Under the Bill as it stands, should an offence be committed at one of these shops the man would probably lose his licence, which would affect all the shops he owns. Taking an extreme case, if the manager of one of the big London dairies committed a breach of the Act and the licence were revoked, it might mean that many shops would lose their licence at the same time. My Amendment would ensure that the loss of licence applies only to the actual place where the offence was committed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 31, after ("on") insert ("at or from the establishment specified in the licence").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I agree with the point raised by the noble Lord. Obviously, it is not the intention of the Bill to penalise a whole organisation for a fault on one of its premises. But I think this point could be dealt with more appropriately under Clause 9 (2), on the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, rather than in this clause. If the noble Lord agrees, I will put down an Amendment to Clause 9 on Report stage to cover this point.

LORD LLEWELLIN

This is a point I wished to raise and I thought it more appropriate on Clause 9. When I was at the Ministry of Food we had cases in which we had to revoke milk licences. I asked what happened if one of the managers of the Home and Colonial Stores or a Co-operative Society committed one of these heinous food offences, and all the shops were covered by one licence. We never actually had to do that, but there was this safeguard: that a licence could be revoked only by the Minister himself. In this case it is the local food and drugs authority who are empowered to revoke the licence, and I think we must ensure that they deal only with licences of places on which an offence has been committed. Otherwise, we shall find ourselves in great difficulties and might possibly upset a large part of the milk supply of a large town. I am obliged to the noble Earl for saying that he will meet this point, and I shall not move my Amendment to Clause 9.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

What the noble Earl suggests will meet the point perfectly. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD KENNET moved, in subsection (4), after "authority" to insert: Before making regulations to which this subsection applies the Minister shall consult with the Associations representing local authorities. The noble Lord said: This clause gives powers to local authorities. Where it is a question of new regulations under this Bill, I suggest that there should be a provision for consultations with associations representing local authorities. This is a very common provision, and I hope the noble Earl will be able to accept it, particularly as in this case we have built upon the possibilities of administrative confusion. Pending improvement, which the Government hope to effect in fresh legislation, I think confusion could best be avoided by previous consultation with the local authorities. Therefore, there seems to be a particularly strong case for consultation.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I readily give the assurance that the local authorities will be consulted. But we are reluctant to specify certain authorities in the Bill, as this may have the effect of excluding others. I think it would be much wiser not to put it in the Statute. The noble Lord may rest assured that in practice the local authorities will always be consulted.

LORD KENNET

The noble Earl may notice that my Amendment specifically refers to associations of local authorities. What he has just told us refers only to consultation with the local authorities. There is a slight difference, is there not? I wonder whether the wording of his assurance extends to consultation with associations.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I am afraid that was just my bad wording. It certainly would include associations of local authorities.

LORD KENNET

I am obliged to the noble Earl for putting that upon the record. I am content with his assurance, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clauses 9 to 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 [Short title, commencement, construction, citation and extent]:

5.1 p.m.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved, in subsection (2), to omit all words after "operation" and to insert "on the first day of October, nineteen hundred and forty-nine." The noble Earl said: In moving this particular Amendment I must apologise to the Committee for having to make rather a lengthy explanation as to how the Amendment arises and why we propose to move it. This Amendment arises from the Government's intention, as expressed by the noble Viscount the leader of the House on the Second Reading of the Bill on December 14 last, that the Food and Drugs (Milk and Dairies) Act, 1944, should be brought into operation at the same time as the present Bill. For a number of reasons this will be convenient. If the present Bill were to come into operation before the 1944 Act, then we should have to make a number of amendments to the existing Milk (Special Designations) Regulations, which will have to be scrapped when the 1944 Act comes into force. On the other hand, if the 1944 Act were to come into operation before this Bill, then the revised Milk (Special Designations) Regulations which will have to be made under the 1944 Act would need to be amended again when the present Bill comes into force. Therefore, to save two bites at the cherry, it is very desirable for the two measures to come into operation simultaneously.

As the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, said on the Second Reading of this Bill, there has been a crop of legal and technical difficulties which have delayed the preparation of the new Milk and Dairies Regulations (including the Special Designations Regulations) which have to be made before the 1944 Act can become effective. The last of the legal difficulties will, we hope, be removed by certain amendments to the 1944 Act which are being proposed in a measure—namely, the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which is at the moment being considered in another place. When it comes before your Lordships' House the difficulties dealt with in Clause 7 of that Bill can, if necessary, be explained in greater detail. The position now is that the Departments concerned—namely, the Ministry of Food, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, have been able to complete the draft Milk and Dairies Regulations, and will be sending them out very shortly to the various representative organisations such as the National Farmers' Union, the Milk Marketing Board, the various local authorities associations, the Central Milk Distributive Committee, the Central Landowners' Association and the National Veterinary Medical Association, for the necessary consultation enjoined by Section 92 (4) of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938.

The Revised Milk (Special Designations) Regulations which have been drafted will now have to be further revised to bring them into line with the present Bill, but in the meantime we are circulating to the interested parties a memorandum describing the new draft Regulations, and also copies of the new draft Schedules to the Special Designation Regulations, with details of the conditions governing the issue of licences to sell milk under a special designation. Subject, of course, to any amendments that may be required to conform with the final state of both the present Bill and the other Bill now in another place, we hope that the necessary consideration and discussions of the draft Regulations will be completed in time for the Minister to make the Regulations by about the beginning of June, so that there may be ample time for finalising the administrative and other arrangements required, and so that all concerned will have adequate notice. As the Committee will appreciate, it will not be possible actually to make the Regulations until both the present Bill and the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill are on the Statute Book.

We must also recruit and train the necessary staff to administer the Milk and Dairies Regulations; these will be trained on dairy farms belonging to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and with the assistance of the county agricultural executive committees and their milk subcommittees. In this connection I would like to say that the Ministry of Agriculture hopes to be advertising shortly for a number of vacancies for the post of milk officer under the National Agricultural Advisory Service, which will be needed for the administration of the Regulations, and we hope to get a number of applications from sanitary officers of the local authorities who have the necessary qualifications and who have had experience of the administration of the present Milk and Dairies Regulations on farms.

This means that we cannot now reasonably hope to bring the Food and Drugs (Milk and Dairies) Act into operation before October 1, 1949, which is the date to which we are now working. For that reason the Government have put down the present Amendment, in order to bring the present Bill into force on that date (in lieu of the present provisions under which the Bill does not come into operation until six months after the Royal Assent). Now that the Government have announced their plans for bringing into operation on October 1 next, not only the present Bill, but also the Food and Drugs (Milk and Dairies) Act, 1944, I am sure we can count on the co-operation of all the parties concerned in working to that time-table. With that explanation, I beg leave to move the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 31, leave out from ("operation") to the end of line 32, and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I do not think anybody will have an objection to a fixed date for the coming into operation of this measure. It is obviously right, for the reasons which the noble Earl has given, that the two measures should come into force at the same date. In fact, I do not think it will make a great deal of difference. As I understand it, this Bill has started in your Lordships' House, and I should not think it can get through another place and receive the Royal Assent until the end of March. If we take April 1 as the date (a good day to take anything!) and add six months to it, we get to October 1, which is the date proposed by the noble Earl. It is obviously much better to have a fixed date for this Bill—indeed, for any Bill—to come into operation once it has become an Act, than to have the vague term of "six months after." For that reason, I think we shall all support the noble Earl in the Amendment which he has just moved.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

House resumed.