§ 2.35 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWMy Lords, as your Lordships will have noticed, this is a short Bill, but at the same time I feel sure you will agree that it is an important one. It has two main objects which I think the Bill explains quite plainly. The first is to deal with other substances than penicillin. I would say straight away that nobody quarrels with the existing Penicillin Act, 1947, but other substances have come forward, not necessarily in that category, which this Bill seeks to empower the Minister concerned to regulate in such a way that their use shall not be detrimental to the public. This applies particularly in the case of isoniazid, which is cheap to produce—it does not at the moment come within the scope of the 1947 Act—and could, if used for self-medicating purposes or without proper advice, do a great deal of harm to the person concerned, and might easily be used in a way in which none of us would wish it to be used.
The other main purpose of the Bill is to allow the Minister and his colleagues interested in the same matters to permit the use of certain of these drugs, particularly, at the moment, penicillin, in the feeding of pigs and table poultry. The Bill allows Regulations to be made to permit the drugs to be used for those purposes. I think your Lordships will agree that science and the medical profession are now moving at such a speed that what to-day seems adequate, may to-morrow be entirely antiquated. There is no doubt that when pigs have this tiny quantity of penicillin introduced into 392 their diet, it fattens them more quickly and thus produces more pork and bacon for the nation. We have heard a great deal about being conservative with a capital "C" and a small "c," and I think we should be conservative with three "c's" if we were to veto this suggestion. With those few remarks, I would commend this Bill to your Lord ships' House. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
§ 2.38 p.m.
§ LORD AMULREEMy Lords, I should like at the outset to express my entire agreement with the statement of the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading, that this is a valuable Bill which will do great good. There are just two points which I should like to raise. The first is that, if penicillin is to be fed to pigs, it must be supplied by a veterinary surgeon; otherwise people may buy it not for the pigs but for themselves. My second point is this. Would it be possible for the Royal Veterinary College to be consulted about any regulations to be made under the Bill when it becomes an Act? They have a great deal of knowledge which I feel should be at the disposal of the Minister. I have nothing further to say, other than to welcome what I agree is a most valuable Bill.
§ LORD HADEN-GUESTMy Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, I welcome this Bill, and I should also like to raise the question which he raised. The supervision of the giving of the penicillin is to be under the advice of the Agricultural Research Council and the Medical Research Council, two well-qualified bodies. Is it necessary, or desirable to add to those two bodies the veterinary surgeons? They will be the people who do the actual work, and it may be that they should be included. On the other hand, it may be that they could be consulted, without actually forming part of the organisation. I am not in favour of creating over-large organisations, and perhaps it would be sufficient if they were consulted. I should be glad if the noble Earl could give us information on that point.
§ LORD LLEWELLINMy Lords, I should like to put two questions to the noble Earl in charge of this Bill. If a person who happens to be allergic to 393 penicillin eats pork from a pig that has been fed and fattened on a penicillin diet, is there any possibility that that may produce penicillin poisoning in that person? Is there enough penicillin digested by the pig to affect people in that way? Similarly, there is the reverse case. If a person goes on eating pork from pigs so fed, may he become in a condition where, if it is thought right to apply penicillin to him for the cure of some disease, he will by then have taken so much penicillin through this food that the penicillin given will have no effect when it is most needed? If the noble Earlin charge of the Bill could answer those two questions. I should be obliged.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, I wish to say one or two words about the Bill as a document, and then I want to utter a slight protest about the absence of something from the Bill. I promise not to be too long, because I know that there is an important Committee stage on another Bill to be taken immediately this Bill has received its Second Reading. In Clause 1 of this Bill we are told that the Penicillin Act, 1947, was concerned with
penicillin and other anti-microbial organic substances produced by living organisms and substances having chemical properties identical with or similar to anti-microbial organic substances so produced. …In this Bill those words—which I do not understand, and, I think, few Members of your Lordships' House understand—are going to be supplanted by the following:The substances to which this Act applies are penicillin and such other therapeutic substances as may be described by regulations …I think it places the House as a whole in considerable difficulty in discussing a Bill when it is drafted in terms and with the use of words which few of us can understand. I could wish that the drafts men had been a little more careful in the use of their terms, so that Members of your Lordships' House who are not medical men could not only understand what the Bill is about but could exercise a vote with knowledge, if a vote had to be taken.Under Clause 2 of this Bill we are told that
Subsection (1) of section one of the Penicillin Act, 1947 … shall not apply to the sale or supply of a substance or preparation 394 specified in regulations under this section if it is sold or supplied in such circumstances and in accordance with such conditions as may be so specified."'If the first quotation I made seemed as difficult as Chinese, I think the second almost as difficult as Russian. I understand neither language. Therefore, I do not know this Bill as I ought to, especially as the noble Earl who has moved the Second Reading has been so sparing of remarks in his description of the Bill's proposals.Now with regard to the other point. The Bill is of great importance and it is, I think, the usual custom, when such a Bill is introduced into either House, where the terms are complicated, for a memorandum to be attached to the Bill explaining in everyday language what the Bill is about and what the clauses provide. Such a memorandum is entirely absent from this Bill, and to that extent your Lordships' House is in some difficulty. I have raised this question before. Indeed, when the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill of 1951 came before your Lordships' House I put a question to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who was in charge of the Bill. I asked whether the memorandum which had been attached to the Bill when it was before another place could be attached also to the Bill when it came to your Lordships' House, so that we might know at a glance what the Schedule to the Bill meant. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, carried through the undertaking which he then gave, and asked the Ministry concerned to look into the matter, but we received no reply in your Lordships' House until the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill came up for 1952, when we were then informed that there were grave reasons why these documents could not be attached to Bills in that way. The one that stuck in my mind longest was that the present procedure had been in operation for 150 years, and that that alone was sufficient to make a change undesirable. I therefore utter a brief and very quiet protest against Bills of this character being presented to us without an explanation being attached to the Bill to enable us the more easily to understand Ministers and other speakers who, perforce, are bound to address your Lordships in more technical terms. I hope I may carry your Lordships with me in that protest, so that those concerned in the matter may give it due consideration.
§ 2.48 p.m.
LORD O'HAGANMy Lords, in rising to say a few words about this Bill, I should like to say straight away that, speaking for myself and, I believe, for most of your Lordships, we welcome the principles of this Bill. There are certain points which have already been dealt with by my noble friend Lord Llewellin to which I was going to call attention. I will not labour them, but I trust that the noble Earl will be able to give us those assurances on the two specific points raised: that the effect of the inoculation by penicillin of pigs will neither be deleterious to those who are allergic to penicillin nor affect the effectiveness of the drug when it is properly administered. I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said. Though in some ways this Bill is very much simpler to understand than a good many other Bills which have been brought to your Lordships' House, at the same time I agree that there is a good deal of feeling that it would be most desirable, with a Bill of this nature, if there were an explanatory memorandum to get over the difficulties such as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd has indicated to the House. I hope that my noble friend will be able to clear up these points, and I hope that he will give us, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, an assurance that in future some form of memorandum will be attached to Bills which are not easy to understand, so far as the verbiage is concerned, but the intention of which is excellent.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWMy Lords, perhaps I may take first the question which has vexed the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd— the question of the lack of a memorandum to this Bill. If I had received earlier notice of that point I might have been able to give a better answer. I understand that it was considered at the time when the Bill was drafted by the Parliamentary draftsman—upon whom, after all, whichever noble Lords sit on this side of the House have to depend—that the Bill was clear enough in its substance. But I will certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to this matter and see whether anything can be done about it.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, are we to understand from the noble Earl that the responsibility for the non-appearance of a memorandum rests upon the drafts- 396 man only? It is rather important that we should know, otherwise we cannot make proper representations about it.
LORD HAWKEThe Bill to my mind is perfectly clear on the face of it, but unless we had some privy knowledge I certainly could not conceive the purpose for which the Bill was required. That, as I see it, is the point of an explanatory memorandum.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWI repeat that it does not of course depend upon the Parliamentary draftsman. I am not blaming him at all. My advice is that the Minister concerned was of the opinion that the Bill was clear enough. But certainly the matter will be looked into. With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, I cannot of course, give any assurance that Bills with which I have nothing to do will have a memorandum. But I will certainly put his point to Her Majesty's Government.
Now, my Lords, I think we have more or less played about, if I may say so, with this Bill. With regard to the question of penicillin in the diet of pigs—a question which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Amulree, Lord Haden-Guest and Lord Llewellin, I may say that this matter has been very carefully gone into, and the Agricultural Research Council and the Medical Research Council are satisfied and have advised the Minister and his advisers that penicillin fed to pigs in this form can do no harm whatsoever. The quantity is so small that it cannot in any way affect the consumers of that pig meat. If noble Lords are worried about it, perhaps I may explain that the penicillin will be fed in one of two ways: either in a compound food where the makers will have to put on the compound a statement of what has been included in it; or in a special mixture—so diluted that it is impossible to extract the penicillin for use in other ways—which the farmer will then be able to mix in his own feeding-stuffs. I am quite satisfied with that assurance that there cannot be anything harmful in this admixture in the feeding-stuffs for either poultry or pigs
§ LORD SILKINWill the penicillin be applied to the national mixtures that are 397 sold—pig food No 1, No. 2 And so on? Will the penicillin be in that mixture so that the consumer will get it ready mixed?
THE EARL OF ONSLOWMy Lords, I can answer that quite easily. It will be in two forms. There is the ordinary pig food that one gets—No. 1 and so on—which might, if the manufacturer liked, be made up to include the compound that contains the penicillin. This would have to be under careful regulation. Alternatively, the compound could be produced in 1 cwt. sacks or something of that kind, but it would be diluted in such a way that it would not be possible to extract the penicillin. The farmer could mix this with his own home-grown feeding-stuffs.
With regard to the question of consultation with the Royal Veterinary College, I understand that the veterinary surgeons will be called in on all agricultural matters of importance. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for taking, as he thought, too short a time in explaining this Bill; but I did not wish to weary your Lordships with my humble phrases, and I thought that, with the time we have had the Bill before the House, the few words I said were sufficient to explain the meaning, importance and substance of the Bill. The noble Lord was a little worried about the meaning of these rather technical medical words. I took the precaution last night of looking up in a book of reference the meaning of "antibiotics" I am informed that it is a slang word, so to speak, to cover the various expressions in the previous Act. For the noble Lord's satisfaction I will tell him what the definition was:
ANTIBIOTIC: A substance produced by living organisms which diffuses into its surroundings and is toxic thereto in individuals belonging to their species.I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.