FOOD AND DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 16 February 1954)

HL Deb 16 February 1954 vol 185 cc883-921 883

§ 2.41 p.m.

§ Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON)
My Lords, before I move the Amendments standing in my name on the Paper, may I crave the indulgence of the House for a moment in order that I may make an explanation? The Bill which we are discussing is not in any sense a Party Bill. It is, as your Lordships are aware, an amendment of the Act of 1938, and both sides of the House are anxious to see it pass into legislation at the earliest possible moment. I would remind your Lordships that my right honourable friend the Minister of Food, in February, 1953, appointed an inter-Departmental Committee to prepare a plan for the siting of slaughterhouses, under a policy of moderate concentration. In December, 1953, the Minister extended the terms of reference of this Committee to include the question of the provision of slaughterhouse capacity to meet the requirements of the period when the rationing and allocation of meat was brought to an end, in the middle of 1954.
The inter-Departmental Committee have prepared an Interim Report (Command Paper 9060), which is now available in the Printed Paper Office, containing recommendations dealing with the provision and licensing of slaughterhouses. It is very important, I think, that the substance of the recommendations of this Report should be included in this Bill or in some other legislation, and there were one or two courses that we might have taken in the matter. We might have introduced, in one House or the other, an entirely new Bill. It would have been a very small Bill, of about five clauses, and, of course, there would have been some delay. Another method would have been to allow the present Bill to go through this House and then to move Amendments in another place which would have had to be brought back to this House. Both of these processes would have involved a certain expenditure of time, and delay in the Bill's becoming an Act. Therefore, if your Lordships will be good enough to give me permission, I propose, after we have 884 finished the Report stage to-day, to ask your leave to move that the Bill be recommitted, so that these four or five clauses (I will not bind myself as to the exact number, but it is very small) may be submitted to you as Amendments. Of course I will see to it that your Lordships have plenty of time to see the Amendments before I ask you once again to go into Committee on the Bill, to add these Amendments, and subsequently to allow the Bill to go through, if you approve, in its complete form.
I apologise to your Lordships for the fact that this was not done earlier, but perhaps you will regard it as a sufficient explanation when I say that the Committee have only just reported and it was only last Friday that my colleagues considered their decisions. Perhaps it will be convenient if, at the end of this afternoon's discussion on the Report stage, I move my Motion that the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House. That will give your Lordships an opportunity, in the event of disagreement, to say so. I ought to add that I have made this proposal after consultation with the Acting Leader of the Opposition, who has expressed his entire approval of it. I beg to move that the Report be now received.

§ Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Viscount Woolton.)

§ On Question, Motion agreed to.

§ Clause 1:

§ Offences in connection with preparation anti sale of injurious foods and adulterated drugs.

§ (5) In determining for the purposes of the principal Act and this Act whether an article of food is injurious to health, regard shall be had not only to the probable effect of the consumption of that article by a person of normal health but also to the probable cumulative effect of the consumption by such a person of articles of substantially the same composition in ordinary quantities.

§ VISCOUNT WOOLTON moved, in subsection (5), to omit all words from "effect" down to and including "normal health" and to insert: of that article on the health of a person consuming it. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is one that arises from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, on the Committee stage of this 885 Bill. Your Lordships will remember that Lord Douglas of Barloch then had some doubt as to the meaning of the expression "in normal health." I was convinced by the arguments that he put forward, and the Amendment which I now submit to your Lordships is meant to meet the point that he then made. I hope the noble Lord will consider that I have in fact met him. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 2, line 8, leave out from ("effect") to ("but") in line 9, and insert ("of that article on the health of a person consuming it'').—(Viscount Woolion.)

§ 2.49 p.m.

§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH
My Lords, I should like to say in one sentence that I think the noble Viscount has met my point completely.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT WOOLTON
My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 2, line 10, leave out from (" effect") to the end of line 10,—(Viscount Woolton.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT WOOLTON
My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 2, line 11, after ("composition") insert ("on the health of a person consuming such articles").—(Viscount Woolton.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following new clause: 2. No person shall abstract from any food any constituent thereof so as to affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality of the food with intent that it may be sold in its altered state. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Bill repeals Section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, and re-enacts in Clause 1 a considerable part of what appeared in Section 2 of the Act of 1938; but, for some reason which is not at present apparent, it leaves out a provision which appears to he useful and valuable. Section 2 of the previous Act provided that: No person shall abstract … from any food any constituent thereof so as to affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality of the food. 886 The present Bill provides in Clause 1 only that abstraction is prohibited where the food is rendered injurious to health. It is still nevertheless the case that the substance or quality of the food may be affected and its nutritive value may be diminished, although it is not rendered positively injurious to health. The purpose of my Amendment is to restore the effect of that provision in the previous Act and to prohibit the abstraction of valuable elements out of food so as to impair its value to the consumer. I do not think that this proposed new clause requires any elaborate explanation. It speaks for itself, and therefore I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— After Clause 1, insert the said new clause,—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)

§ LORD TEVIOT
My Lords, I desire to support the noble Lord in his proposed new clause. The only doubt I feel is about the meaning of the words "any food." As your Lordships are aware, I look upon 100 per cent. extraction flour as food, and I can see that without this proposed new clause such flour would be detrimentally interfered with, and is now being detrimentally interfered with, by the abstraction from it of various foods such as bemax and various others. In my view, and in the view of a great many other people, that is detrimental to the nutritional value of the flour. It is detrimental to the general health of the people who consume this flour which has been affected by the abstraction of these various articles contained therein. Of course, these articles are sold in an unaltered condition, very much to the benefit of those who deal in, them. As I said in your Lordships' House some time ago, there are people, too many people, making a lot of money by tampering with the food, and there are far too many people making a great deal of money trying to cure the evil that is being done. I heartily support the suggestion in my noble friend's Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT WOOLTON
My Lords, I was not sure whether my noble friend Lord Teviot was supporting the noble Lord or not, because he said that he did not know what was meant by "any food," We must be practical. If my noble friend will forgive my saying so, we know his views. He was good enough to instruct me considerably on the subject when I 887 was Minister of Food. But we are also legislating for the people of this country. In spite of the eloquence of my noble friend over all these years, he has not yet convinced them on this subject of 100 per cent. extraction.

§ LORD TEVIOT
May I, with great respect, interrupt my noble friend at this point? Does the noble Viscount realise that there is an enormous increase in the demand all over the country for the particular bread that I have mentioned? The difficulty is that the people have to get up very early in the morning to obtain it because the bakers bake only a limited amount. There is no doubt that there is an enormous increase in the demand for this particular bread.

§ VISCOUNT WOOLTON
I am sure that what the noble Lord says is right. It is probably due to the fact that I have a strong objection to getting up early in the morning that I have never been able to get hold of the sort of bread that he wants me to. However, there is no reason why, under the Bill as it stands, people should not have the sort of bread that the noble Lord wants them to have. That is a matter which they have to settle with the bakers.
The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, is on a different wicket altogether. I have done my best to meet him in the course of this Bill, and I have no hesitation in paying tribute to the improvements that he has made in it. But I cannot go with him over this fence. I think he is going a great deal too far. In the first place, if he will look at Clause 1, he will see that it says: No person shall add any substance to food, use any substance as an ingredient in the preparation of food, abstract any constituent from food … and so on. That is the substance of what he has put in his Amendment. I think his point is already sufficiently covered. I looked up what the noble Lord said in the Committee stage of the Bill on January 20, when he went back to Section 2 of the 1938 Act. The position is that, if he had his way, there would be no defence. Section 3 of the 1938 Act, as amended by this Bill, would have the defence which your Lordships will find if you look at Clause 2 of the Bill, which is a little more onerous than that of Section 2 of the 1938 Act to which the 888 noble Lord referred, inasmuch as it obliges the defence to prove absence of fraudulent intent as well as the fixing of the appropriate label or notice. I think that, having gone that far, it is as far as your Lordships ought to consider going. I greatly regret that I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment.

§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH
My Lords, I too very much regret it, and I am still unable to understand, for no explanation of this has been vouchsafed to us, why the provision of the 1938 Act is repealed and nothing is put in its place. There may be a good reason for it, but up to the present moment it has not appeared in any explanation which the noble Viscount has given to the House. Read in conjunction with Clause 2 of this Bill, the new clause which I am proposing does not make it impossible to take certain constituents out of food provided that it is done without any fraudulent intent and provided that the consumer is given notice. Surely, as a general matter of principle, there is no reason why it should not be stated in our law, as it has been for quite a long time past—so far as I am aware, without any inconvenience or detriment—that it is not right to take valuable constituents out of food. We know that it is done, and also that articles continue to be sold under names by which they have been traditionally known although, in fact, their quality has been altered. With all respect to the noble Viscount, I have not yet seen the reason for proposing to remove what has been part of our law for a good many years.

§ On Question, Amendment negatived.

§ Clause 2:

§ Defences available in proceedings under s, 3 of principal Act

§ (3) Paragraphs (1) to (3) of section four of the principal Act, and section five of that Act, shall cease to have effect; and any reference in that Act to the said section four shall be construed as including a reference to this section.

§ VISCOUNT WOOLTON
My Lords, this is a drafting point, to make rather better English of the sentence. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 2, line 30, leave out ("either")—(Viscount Woolton.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

889

§ 3.3 p.m.

§ LORD AMULREE moved, in subsection (3), after the words, "Paragraphs (1) to (3)" to insert, "and paragraph (5)." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to take away the power which exists at present for a person to plead, as a defence for supplying something which was not pure, that the drug supplied was a proprietary medicine and was supplied in accordance with the demand of the purchaser. I think there are several objections to this particular defence. The first is that the food and drugs authorities feel that they cannot bring prosecutions under Section 3 of the Food and Drugs Act, because there is at the present time that definite loophole in the law, whereby the defendant may say that it is a proprietary medicine and therefore no charge will lie. Secondly, I think it is dangerous in that one can sell some kind of inferior drug and avoid prosecution for not complying with the requirements of the British Pharmacopœa, by pleading that the article concerned is a proprietary medicine, and that therefore no charge would lie. Thirdly, I would ask: is it necessary to give this protection to retail pharmacists when it is not given to other retailers who sell prepared things in their shops? The fourth reason is that the defence under that particular paragraph of Section 4 is redundant, because its only purpose was to prevent prosecutions in cases where the consumer was not prejudiced. My Lords, having put forward the four reasons why I think my Amendment is a good one, I bee to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 2, line 42, after ("(3)") insert ("and paragraph (5).")—(Lord Amulree.)

§ LORD BURDEN
My Lords, I am sure that every Member of your Lordships' House listens with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, on these subjects, and I will not say that I do not agree with him. Remembering, as no doubt he remembers, what was published about the time of the First World War in regard to explaining the contents of patent medicines, one has a good deal of sympathy with him on this matter. But I think the noble Lord will realise that his Amendment makes a very important change in the law as it exists today; and it is usual, rightly or wrongly, for negotiations to take place in regard to a vital 890 change like this, particularly as manufacturers and shopkeepers and others have for many years been working under a certain code. If that code is now to be changed, it had better be changed after full consultation, otherwise it may inflict grievous loss on manufacturers and shopkeepers who, up till now, have acted within the ambit of the law. If the Government are inclined to accept this Amendment, perhaps it would be better for it to be withdrawn now and for negotiations to take place with the trade and other interested parties. I have no knowledge of the Government's mind on this matter, but in view of all that is involved, I think it would be quite wrong for this change of the law, which would so vitally hit a number of manufacturers and shopkeepers, to take place without these consultations.

LORD WALER AN
My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord who has just spoken. This Amendment, which repeals Section 4, makes a great change. It has been Put in at very short notice, and if the noble Lord would withdraw it it could be considered and possibly could be adopted in another place.

§ THE JOINT PARIAAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON)
My Lords, I must confess that I had not realised that any of your Lordships would object to this Amendment, and I was quite prepared to accept what the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, said, and to accept his Amendment. The reasons why I was prepared to do that were that, as he has said, the paragraph which he wants to delete provides that it shall be a defence for the defendant to prove that the article supplied was a proprietary medicine and was supplied in response to a demand for that medicine. The retention of that defence has been criticised in various quarters, on the ground that it prevents the taking of proceedings where somebody buys a medicine and obtains the medicine he asks for, but in point of fact the medicine is defective. That person would be prejudiced and could not take proceedings. It is the case that as regards proprietary foods such a defence is not allowed, and it seems sensible that there should not be any particular difference between proprietary foods and proprietary medicines
891 I am told that there have been informal discussions with the trade associations concerned with this particular Amendment, and that they will accept it. I do not know what "informal" means, because I did not deal with this point before the Report stage started, but I am told that there have been discussions. I do not know whether that would satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Burden, and the noble Lord, Lord Waleran, but I think there is substance in this Amendment; I think it is sense and I should like to accept it.

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, no doubt the noble Lord is well advised to accept it, but there is another stage here and there is another place. Is there any urgency about this matter? In view of the doubts that have been expressed, would it not be wiser to hold the matter over and make quite sure that these consultations really have been taking place, and that this Amendment is acceptable to those who are involved?

§ LORD CARRINGTON
My Lords, I can definitely say that the Amendment is acceptable to those who have been consulted. The trade has been consulted. I did not think that the noble Lord, Lord Burden, or my noble friend behind me, had any objection to the principle of the Amendment. What they were worried about was whether people had been consulted, and I can give them the assurance that they have.

LORD WALERAN
My Lords, if your Lordships would permit me to speak for a second time on this matter I could give your Lordships a second example.

§ VISCOUNT WOOLTON
I am afraid the noble Lord cannot speak a second time.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, after Clause 2 to insert the following new clause: 3.—(1) No person shall sell or offer for sale for human consumption any article of food to which any synthetically produced chemical has been added unless such article has attached thereto a notice of adequate size distinctly and legibly printed and conspicuously visible clearly stating the ingredients contained therein. (2) A person who contravenes this section shall be guilty of an offence.

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, the purpose 892 of which is to require that when an article of food is sold or offered for sale and it contains some synthetic chemical, it shall be clearly labelled so as to disclose to the purchaser that that is the case. One has discovered during the course of these discussions that it is impossible to convince the Government that the addition of chemicals to foodstuffs ought to be completely prohibited, but I submit to the House that it is highly desirable that the consumer should have notice of what the constituents of an article of food are if additions of that kind have been made to it.

§ This practice has now become extremely widespread, and numerous articles of food, including many of those most commonly consumed, are liable to have various chemical products added to them. The bakery trade provides an example. It has already become quite common to use fat substitutes instead of lard or other natural fats. Surface wetting agents and things of that kind are added in order to preserve the moisture and to make the article look tender and fresh although, in fact, it is stale and many kinds of synthetic flavouring and colouring matters also are used. The consumer has not at present the faintest idea that anything of that kind has been done, and most of them assume subconsciously that articles such as cakes continue to be made out of the traditional ingredients, though that is far from being the case, therefore the consumer ought to have the opportunity of knowing what it is that is being sold to him, especially when it is something which is not a natural article of food.

§ It is, of course, quite common to find a food which is merely a mixture of natural articles of food; such foods have been used now for a very long time and are perfectly acceptable. But when things like poloxyethylene stearates are used instead of natural fats a totally different state of affairs arises, and it is in the interest of public health that it should at any rate be known what it is that is contained in the food. It is doubly important, because one has to remember that people may be eating a number of different articles of food each of which has been treated with some kind of chemical substance, and although one of those individually might not be deleterious it is quite conceivable that the combination might be. Moreover, 893 there is not, in ray opinion, sufficient knowledge yet available to the public health authorities of what is being put into food, and therefore some obligation ought to be imposed upon manufacturers so that the public health authorities may be alert to consider what is being done and to make inquiries as to whether or not the additions made to foodstuffs in that way are likely to be injurious to health.

§ This matter has, as we know, reached a stage at which many synthetic chemicals are being used. Some have been used for long periods although they have ultimately been found to be injurious to health. Quite recently an order has been made prohibiting the use of all sweetening agents except saccharin, a belated acknowledgment of the fact that a number of synthetic sweetening agents are in fact injurious. Even in the case of this permitted ingredient, is there any reason why the consumer should not be informed that his food has been sweetened with saccharin and not with sugar? It may be that saccharin is not injurious, put even if it is not, nobody contends that it has any nutritive value whatsoever: and the public are entitled to know if something which is nutritive, such as sugar, has been replaced by something which has no food value whatsoever. I do not want to detain the House. I think I have outlined the principal reasons why a provision of this kind is not only desirable but necessary.

§ Amendment moved— After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)

§ LORD TEVIOT
My Lords, I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, in this Amendment, and I do so for the simple reason that I think fiat every endeavour should be made immediately to ensure that people know what they are buying and what they are going to eat. If we do not provide for something of that kind we shall go on having these appalling experiences of food poisoning. I heard only at lunch to-day of another case where there was throughout a school poisoning of a very violent nature. It seems to me that there is every reason why we should inform the public as much as we can of the constituents of any foods they buy. I entirely agree with what Lord Amulree said in dealing with his Amendment: that what 894 was applied in the Pharmacy Act when I was in the House of Commons should apply to made-up and special foods that are sold to the public to-day. I beg to support the Amendment.

§ 3.20 p.m.

§ VISCOUNT WOOLTON
My Lords, I am sorry to have to adopt this perhaps slightly Russian attitude of saying "No" in every case to the noble Lord. One thing which the noble Lord said was a profound truth. He said it was impossible to convince the Government that chemicals should not be added to food. I agree with him there. I am glad to agree with him in something, but I am afraid I cannot agree with him in anything else that he said, in so far as I understood it, because his scientific knowledge is so much greater than mire that he left me completely at the post. My noble friend Lord Teviot must not assume—indeed, I am sure he does not—that because there was food poisoning in a school it was due to the addition to the food of some synthetically produced chemical. With the greatest respect—which I always show to him—I thought his speech had no particular reference to the Amendment which Lord Douglas of Barloch has moved. This Amendment is quite impracticable. Of course synthetically produced chemicals are added to food. If it were not so, what would our cakes taste like? The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, has great scientific knowledge but I should say that he has not much knowledge of baking. If there were no bicarbonate of soda or baking powder to be put into cakes, I think they would be rather worse than they are.

LORD SILKEN
I should like to ask what is the objection to stating that an article contains these things.

§ VISCOUNT WOOLTON
I will tell the noble Lord that if he will be good enough to wait a moment. We are talking about a cake, and according to this Amendment it would have to bear a label "distinctly and legibly printed." The noble Lord says it must be "distinctly and legibly printed and conspicuously visible," and it has to state clearly what the ingredients are. Would the noble Lord really recommend that that should go into the legislation of the country? I am sorry; I do not want to spend any more time upon I this; but I cannot accept the Amendment 895 as part of the Bill. But I will say this, and I hope that it will afford some satisfaction to noble Lords: where we are dealing with specific articles, we can do things by regulations in cases in which it is possible to state their ingredients clearly on a label. That can be enforced by regulations in the case of specific articles. But I cannot accept an Amendment which covers everything in the manner in which the noble Lord's Amendment does. I regret, therefore, that we cannot consent to the noble Lord's Amendment.

§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH
The noble Lord has drawn particular attention to the phrase in my Amendment about a notice of adequate size distinctly and legibly printed and conspicuously visible. That formula I have derived from Clause 2 of the Bill. I am entirely indebted to the noble Viscount himself for it. It was phrased in such admirable words that I thought I could not possibly do better than use them. So I do not think any objection can be taken upon that ground. If this system is to apply to one thing, there is no reason why it should not apply to another. I am equally surprised to hear the noble Viscount's statement that it is impossible to make cakes without the addition of all the numerous things which in commercial practice are put into them at the present time. In my household, at any rate, we find it possible to do so, using the traditional ingredients of flour, eggs, sugar and so on. We do not need to use any mono- or di-glycerides or anything of that kind in order to achieve a result which most people regard as more agreeable in every way than many of the products which are obtained by the commercial process. The commercial substitutes no doubt are cheaper than the traditional nutritive ingredients which used to be put into the bakery products, and there is, therefore, a great temptation to use them. My Amendment does not say that they shall not be used. On that point, as I said, the Government are impervious to argument. But I am surprised that they should be impervious to argument upon a plea that the consumer should be given an opportunity of knowing what it is that he is being invited to consume. That, I think, is extremely regrettable. I hope that before this Bill reaches the end of 896 its legislative journey the Ministers will yet see the advisability of accepting a proposal of this nature.

§ On Question, Amendment negatived.

§ 3.28 p.m.

§ LORD SEMPILL moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause: 3. No person shall sell or offer for sale any article of food which has been processed by means of any substance which is not in itself a food stuff unless such article has attached thereto a label stating clearly and legibly the nature of the process and the substance used. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name, and I will explain to your Lordships as briefly as possible the process of thought that has brought me to submit it. As your Lordships will all agree, the importance of the treatment of food, during production and processing, by chemical substances foreign to the body, should always receive the closest attention. I suggest that whatever is done to our food should be governed by its effect on human health, and that the dominant voice should be that of medical science, speaking through the Minister of Health, and not that of the chemists, generally called "food scientists," speaking through the Minister of Food.

§ As your Lordships will remember, there are many instances in which chemicals used in food, and thought to be harmless, when approval for their use was first given, have subsequently proved the reverse. Records show that the authorities in the United States move with greater despatch than our own in banning a harmful ingredient, and in one notable instance such action by the United States authorities was taken as the result of conclusions reached by the Medical Research Council, following a lengthy investigation by the then Secretary, Sir Edward Mellanby. This fact, I feel sure, will have given great satisfaction to your Lordships since, as has often been stressed by members of the Medical Research Council, we owe so much to the highly developed laboratory and examining mechanism in the United States as expressing itself through the Food and Drug Administration. Until recently—and it may still be so—we had often to rely on the decisions arrived at in the United States before a policy or action could be determined. The action taken 897 by the United States authorities to which I have referred relates, as your Lordships will remember, to bread, and led to the banning of agene in that country. The apparent official complacency over this, and the wider problem of food manipulation is very disturbing. As another illustration of delay in official action, I would refer to dulcin, a synthetic sweetener which was prohibited as a poisonous substance in the United States in January, 1950, since it inhibited growth and produced liver tumours. We followed suit in September, 1953.

§ The addition of substances foreign to the food to which they are added may disguise the natural smell, which is, of course, one way the housewife has of knowing whether food is fresh or stale, as well as alter its appearance and taste. So the words of that great artiste, Marie Lloyd: A little of what you fancy does you good does not apply in these days of food manipulation. The reverse, indeed, is not unlikely. Leading medical scientists have been pointing out for years that the increase in disease over a wide range is due to errors of living, introduced or greatly increased in modern times, and that the ingestion of food treated by unnatural chemical substances may well be one of these errors of living. They produce some alarming results. For example, some thirty years back the annual number of deaths in this country from heart disease was about 65,000, and the figure did not vary very much during the preceding ten or twenty years. But by 1926 the number had risen to 87,000; by 1931 to 125,000, and by 1947 to 167,000. And to-day, I believe, it stands at around 250,000.

§ I am anxious to persuade your Lordships, if I can, that a halt should be called to the chemical manipulation of food. I believe, however, that, as matters now stand, this desired end is being achieved not by legislation but by the advance of medical science, which shows with increasing force the dangers that come from the ingestion of these foreign bodies, and also by the process of "natural selection" which is exercised by the housewife, who is becoming ever more food conscious and insists upon knowing just what she is buying. Naturally, she wants to buy jam and fruit juice free from sulphur dioxide, kippers free 898 from dye, whole wheat bread, and even cornflour free from the dye which turns it yellow and gives it another but entirely misleading name. When the housewife looks at most of the labels, she is confused, and eventually annoyed. The straightforward labelling of foodstuffs is not difficult. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to pass to my noble friend, Lord Woolton, a sheet of labels taken from a number of foods that my family of three young children consume daily. I know your Lordships will agree that we can never pay sufficient tribute to what we owe to our womenfolk. It is they who have borne, and. bear, the heat and burden of the day, and since the feeding of the future generation is exclusively in their hands, I submit not only that it is right but that it is your Lordships' bounden duty to help them. I beg your Lordships to join with me in persuading the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, to think again; to agree that all foodstuffs should be clearly labelled, and, by so doing, to maintain at its height his position as the "national sugar daddy" by again taking the housewives, who loved him so much in the days of the war, into his confidence by telling them frankly just what they are eating. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Sempill.)

§ LORD CARRINGTON
My Lords, I am not the "national sugar daddy," and I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, would call me, but I am afraid that I am no more convinced by his argument than is my noble friend Lord Woolton. I do not suppose the noble Lord is greatly surprised, since his speech, in essence, is the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch; and the reasons why Her Majesty's Government cannot accept this Amendment are exactly the same as those which my noble friend Lord Woolton gave to the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, on the last Amendment. All that is necessary is covered in the Bill as it stands. As the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, will see, Clause 5 is an enabling clause, under which the Minister can make regulations for the labelling of food when he thinks it necessary. If the noble Lord will look at Clause 3 (1) (a), (b) and (c) he will see that there again this point can be 899 covered. In an enormous trade like the food trade, I think his Amendment would put too much on the manufacturers, and it would be impracticable to use such a wide power as the noble Lord wants us to take. Like the previous Amendment, this Amendment would create an absolute offence where Section 3 of the 1938 Act creates an offence only if the purchaser has been prejudiced. I assure the noble Lord of what I think he already knows, because we have had a number of debates on this subject: that the Government have very much in mind the sort of suggestions he has made, but as the Bill stands we have sufficient power to deal with this point.

§ LORD CALVERLEY
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, tells the House that in the Bill there is an enabling clause, but what I think the noble Lord who moved the Amendment is asking is this: Will that clause allow the enablers to give us jam, for instance, with the knowledge that this noxious drug is going to be in it? The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, does not give any assurance at all. I think the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, has made out an irresistible case for pure food. He has given us the statistics, and figures can never lie—though I know that remark can be turned round. I wish that the noble Lord would go on a crusade to tell the housewives not to use a tin opener or to buy jam with sulphur dioxide in It I refuse to buy English jam if I can buy Australian jam, because I know that it is pure. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, represents a new generation. I only wish that he would use the same eloquence he used a minute or two ago to persuade the younger generation of housewives to do a bit of baking and make their own cakes.

§ LORD WEBB-JOHNSON
Hear, hear!

§ LORD CALVERLEY
I think the noble Lord, who said "Hear, hear," with his great experience as a former President of the Royal College of Surgeons, knows that his job would become obsolete if that were done. There would be fewer operations for appendicitis and a dozen other ailments from which modern man suffers, owing to the obstinacy of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in this 900 matter. I am a conservative in household affairs. I believe in knowing what our food is made of. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, with his sympathetic nature, could perhaps be persuaded—sometimes we can be non-Party, and this is not a Party issue—to accept this Amendment and so allow us to go a step further to see that our people are not poisoned more and more from day to day.

§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH
My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Sempill. It deals particularly with the processing of food by means of artificial substances. This is an extensive practice. There are the examples which the noble Lord has given of the use of sulphur dioxide, a bleaching agent, which is commonly applied not only to jam, but to other foodstuffs as well, to act as a preservative. It is said that when the food is boiled the residue of sulphur dioxide is boiled out of it—and that is perfectly true. But before that has happened a chemical reaction has taken place between some of the sulphur dioxide and the ingredients of the food, and the effects of it are visible in the bleaching which has taken place, one of the results of which, naturally, is that the jam manufacturer then proceeds to conceal what has happened by dyeing the fruit.
But there are many other examples. There is the example, with which no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is familiar, used in agriculture: potatoes are treated with a synthetic hormone called tuberite, for the purpose of preventing them from sprouting. Only a few weeks ago I noticed that a new anti-sprouting chemical had been invented. which is sprayed on to the potatoes, is absorbed by the leaves and stored in the tubers. I do not know whether anybody has discovered what the effect of eating potatoes so treated may be, especially if they are consumed over a lifetime. All one can say about potatoes at the present time is that the quality of those which are normally procurable in London, for example, is deplorably bad. Whether that is due to the treatment they have received, or to other causes, I do not know. Let me give your Lordships one further example. Not long ago I bought some dried beans from an ex- 901 tremely reputable London store. When these beans were put into water, in order to sprout them, it became evident that they had been treated with some chemical; and instead of sprouting, they began to ferment, and gave off a most unpleasant odour. Since then my inclination to eat beans has been greatly diminished. When I made inquiries, I found that the beans had been treated in a foreign country, where they had been grown before they were imported to this country. That merely emphasises the necessity for having regulations which are stringent, in order to disclose what processing articles of food have been subjected to. The suppliers were unable to say with what these beans had been treated. Since then, however, I have discovered that this is a common practice, That is only one illustration out of many, but it indicates that something ought to be done about this.
If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, correctly, he indicated that the Government have it in mind, under other provisions in the Bill, to make some regulations which would deal with this matter. It will be interesting for your Lordships to know whether those regulations are likely to be co-extensive with the amount of evil which is known to exist. If, in fact, they were so extensive as to effect, in practice, the purpose covered by the Amendment moved by my noble friend, that would give us all a great deal of consolation and hope for the future: but if the regulations are to he used only sporadically and occasionally, in a very small field, that does not hold out much hope to the consumer.

§ LORD WEBB-JOHNSON
My Lords, I find it somewhat difficult to follow the course of the arguments on this Amendment. Apparently the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, disapproves of all synthetic substances, whereas I was under the impression that it was by synthesis that we had produced some of the most valuable chemicals known to man. It is not only synthetic chemicals to which the noble Lord objects, however, because I recollect that on a recent occasion he was attacking the addition of pure elements to food and water supplies. There is no limit, apparently, to what people with fixed ideas, and terribly fixed fears about the preparation of food, 902 imagine might happen if something is added. We have my noble friend Lord Teviot putting food poisoning down to synthetic chemicals.

§ LORD TEVIOT
If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I did not say definitely that it was a cause. But, as the noble Lord knows full well, in the last year we have had many instances of food poisoning. I want to find out the reason for that, and I think this might be a way of doing so.

§ LORD WEBB-JOHNSON
The noble Lord, surely, knows that certain viruses and bacilli and organic substances produced by these organisms are concerned in food poisoning. But this is not a suitable arena for a debate on the causes of food poisoning. After the last debate on iodine and fluorine, because American publications had been referred to, I looked up the literature, and found it stated that Communism was caused by adding fluorine to the water supply. We have had cancer, and every possible disease paraded, but if Communism is to be dragged in, then we really must he most careful. I would urge that this Bill should not be impeded by debates on items of this sort when there is ample power in the Bill for the Government of the day to deal by regulation with anything that arises.

§ On Question, Amendment negatived.

§ Clause 3:

§ Regulations as to composition of food, etc.

§ —(1) The Ministers may, so far as appears to them to be necessary or expedient in the interests of the public health, or otherwise for the protection of the public, make regulations for any of the following purposes:

(a) for requiring, prohibiting or regulating the addition of any specified substance, or any substance of soy specified class, to food intended for sale for human consumption or any class of such food, or the use of any such substance as an ingredient in the preparation of such food, and generally for regulating the composition of such food;
(b) for requiring, prohibiting or regulating the use of any process or treatment in the preparation of any food intended for sale for human consumption, or any class of such food;

§ 3.50 p.m.

§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) to omit "requiring." The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I refer to Amendments 8 and 9 together, because they are 903 identical and are for the purpose of leaving out the word "requiring" which, as it stands, would enable the Government to oblige manufacturers of foodstuffs to introduce into them anything that the Government please. That is a rather strong power and one which is going very far indeed. It may be proper that regulations should be made for the other purposes which are contained in this clause, and that people should be prevented from doing things which are injurious to the food supply of the country. But when it comes to requiring people to add things to food or to use certain methods of processing, then one would like to know what it is that is envisaged in this connection. Is this intended to be a means, for example, of obliging us to have iodine in our salt, whether we want it or not, or to oblige us to have agenetreated flour, whether we want it or not? This kind of power could be used for purposes which undoubtedly would be obnoxious to a considerable number of the population and, perhaps, to all the population, if they understood what was being done. I should like to know at least what the case for including these words in the Bill is, and what purpose it is that the Government have in view in inserting them. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 3, line 5, leave out ("requiring")—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)

§ LORD CARRINGTON
My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, will not think me discourteous if I do not take long in answering this Amendment. May I remind him that about a fortnight ago we spent an entire afternoon discussing this subject in a debate he raised on whether mass medication was desirable or not. I told him at the end of the debate, in specific terms, exactly on what principles Her Majesty's Government were going to proceed on this question of adding chemicals to foods. The power under which Her Majesty's Government have hitherto done this has been in the Defence Regulations. When these Defence Regulations lapse it will be necessary in some cases—for instance, in the case which he has mentioned, of the addition of chalk to flour—to continue to add it; and it will be necessary to take the powers which are now in the Bill. But I can give him the assurance that when there are any pro- 904 posals to add any of these substances, full publicity will be given to the matter and I am prepared to wager that the first person who will get to hear of it will be the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch. The second thing I am prepared to tell the noble Lord is that, of course, all organisations who are interested will be consulted.

§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH
M Lords, I am sorry to hear the reply which the noble Lord has given. It confirms suspicions which one had about this provision. In fact, it is intended to be a means of compulsory mass medication, and I am extremely surprised to find that that is the ground upon which it is defended. I had hoped that there might have been some other and better reason given for it. It will certainly cause a great deal of anxiety among the people of this country when they get to know that that is the policy of the Government and that that is what is contained in this Bill.

§ On Question, Amendment negatived.

§ Amendment moved— Page 3, line 12, leave out ("requiring").—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)

§ On Question, Amendment negatived.

§ 3.54 p.m.

§ LORD TEVIOT had given notice of his intention to move to add to subsection (1): (e) for publishing lists of chemicals and other ingredients which may be added to any article of food.

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the Government do not appear to wish to give information which has been asked for in various Amendments, I do not see much object in wasting the time of the House in moving my Amendment, because I am asking again for publicity in regard to what I consider an important matter. In view of the attitude already adopted, I will not move my Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT WOOLTON
My Lords, let me assure the noble Lord that this is one of the occasions on which he might have moved his Amendment. I am sure it embarrasses him to know that. The Minister will proceed here by regulations, and the regulations will be published. I believe the noble Lord has everything he wants without moving his Amendment, but I am obliged to him for not moving I it.

905

§ Clause 7 [Amendment of s. 14 of principal Act]:

§ LORD CARRINGTON
My Lords, this Amendment is to meet an undertaking which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and, I think, to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, on the Committee stage. They were worried that conditions could be imposed which were other than for the use of the Food and Drugs Act. This Amendment makes it perfectly clear that that cannot he done. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 8, line 13, after ("unsuitable") insert ("(having regard to their situation, constructs an or condition, or to any activities carried an therein)").—(Lord Carrington.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 9 [Imitation cream]:

§ VISCOUNT WOOLTON moved to leave out Clause 9. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the House will remember that when the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, moved some Amendments on the Committee stage, as then advised I acepted them, which I was very glad to do. I still accept the sense of them bat the Parliamentary draftsmen have assured me that it would serve the purpose of the Bill and of the noble Earl if the language was altered somewhat. The purpose of the three sub-sections which I am moving is to carry out the undertaking that I gave and, at the same time, to put the Bill into what the legal people tell me is the right form. I hope the noble Earl will find them acceptable. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 9, line 35, leave out Clause 9.—(Viscount Woolton.)

EARL ST. ALDWYN
My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, was good enough to inform me that be intended to move this Amendment, and he wrote and assured me that it would make no difference whatever to the import of the Amendment which I moved at the Committee stage. With that assurance, I readily accept this Amendment.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 11:

§ Provisions relating to milk

§ 11.—(1) Milk and Dairies Regulations made under section one of the 1950 Act may provide (subject to such exceptions as may be allowed by or under the regulations)—

906

§ (b) for prohibiting the sale for human consumption of milk obtained from cows milked in any market or other place where cattle are collected for the purposes of sate or showing, whether or not the market or place is registered under that Act as a dairy farm;

§ 3.59 p.m.

§ LORD MERTHYR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: My Lords, from the point of view of public health I have no objection whatever to the paragraph in this Bill that I seek to leave out; but, in my submission, if it is included it will have an unfortunate result. It will, I think, increase cruelty in markets—the cruelty of over-stocking cows which now takes place in considerable volume. If anticipate that this paragraph will make the milking of cows in these markets less profitable. If it is less profitable it will not be done as often as it now is, and if that result occurs then the cruelty will increase. Of course, from my point of view what I should like is some Amendment put in to make the milking of the, cows before the market begins compulsory. I anticipate that the noble Lord would say that that had nothing to do with this Bill—apparently I anticipate rightly. But if he can think about this point and see whether he can meet it in any way I shall be greatly obliged. I think the House will agree that the overstocking of cows in markets is a real and serious menace. I am satisfied that its volume is considerable and that we should be apprehensive—if only for the sake of public health—in putting something in this Bill which will, I have very little doubt, increase it. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 11, line 11, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Merthyr.)

§ LORD CARRINGTON
My Lords, my noble friend started his remarks by saying that he had nothing against this particular paragraph from the public health point of view. He will no doubt realise that if his Amendment were carried it would make it impossible for the Government to prohibit the sale for human consumption of milk produced at a market which is registered as a dairy farm under this Bill. I think we all have great sympathy with what the noble Lord has said about cruelty to animals, but this seems to me to be one of those difficult 907 cases where we have to balance both sides—the advantage or disadvantage of selling unhygienic, or unhygienically produced, milk to the public, as against any possible cruelty to animals. My noble friend will realise that there is nothing positive in the Bill which prohibits the milking of animals in a market. He says that this will make in very likely that they are not milked. In that case, the owner may be proceeded against under the Protection of Animals Act, as my noble friend is aware. In addition, I can give him the assurance that the Ministry of Agriculture veterinary surgeons are well aware of the needs, and of the difficulties of milking cows in the market; and they will be most willing to co-operate in any way they can with any of the welfare societies which deal with this matter. In view of that undertaking, I hope the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD MERTHYR
I thank the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ VISCOUNT WOOLTONmoved, after Clause 11 to insert the following new clause: —(1) Throughout the 1950 Act and the principal Act, for the words 'artificial cream,' wherever those words occur (including the definitions of that expression in those Acts, hut except in section thirty-eight of the 1950 Act, which provides for the citation of that Act), there shall be substituted the words reconstituted cream. (2) Section twenty-nine of the 1950 Act (which, as amended by the foregoing subsection, regulates the sale of reconstituted cream) shall apply with the necessary modifications in relation to imitation cream as it applies in relation to reconstituted cream. (3) For the purposes of this section imitation cream' means an article of food which, not being cream or reconstituted cream resembles cream and is produced by emulsifying edible oils or fats with water, with or without other substances. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the Amendment to omit Clause 9. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— After Clause 11, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Woolton.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

908

§ Clause 14 [Enforcement of certain enactments and regulations]:

§ VISCOUNT WOOLTON
My Lords, this Amendment is moved to implement an undertaking which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. The purpose of the Amendment is to make it clear that notifications of intention to institute proceedings on labelling offences shall give a full account of the case, and not merely state that the prosecuting authority considers that an offence has been committed. Noble Lords may remember that Lord Balfour of Inchrye said that he thought some explanation ought to be made, and these words are intended to meet what seems to me a very reasonable case. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 15, line 34, leave out ("their reasons for so doing") and insert ("the facts upon which the charges are founded").—(Viscount Woolton.)

§ Clause 16:

§ Repeal of certain administrative provisions of 1950 Act

§ 16. The following provisions of the 1950 Act shall cease to have effect, that is to say— (a) sections five and sixteen (which require that Milk and Dairies Regulations shall provide for the constitution of a central committee and county committees to review the working of those regulations and of Milk (Special Designation), Regulations); and

§ 4.4 p.m.

§ LORD BURDEN moved to leave out paragraph (a). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. This Amendment is moved in order that I may obtain, as I hope I shall obtain, an assurance from the Minister in regard to procedure. The noble Viscount will be aware that both the 1944 Act and the 1950 Act provided for the setting up of committees in county areas. The present Minister of Agriculture (I am not criticising him) suggested that these committees should not be set up because the county agricultural committees, which were set up under the 1947 Agriculture Act, have power to appoint sub-committees; and I believe that most of them have, in fact, appointed milk sub-committees. The Minister of Agriculture has power to delegate some of his responsibility to the county agricultural committees, and clearly that power, or 909 some of it, should be delegated to the milk sub-committees. The assurance that I hope to obtain from the Minister is that the milk sub-committees will devote their attention to the production of milk on farms, and will not enter into the province of distribution, which up to now has been the province of the local authorities.

§ There is no reason at all why any county agricultural committee should not do its own work. I believe that these committees are doing their work very effectively indeed, so far as the farm is concerned, but I do not see why they should pass into the sphere of distribution, which I suggest is a field quite outside their normal sphere of operation. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that these milk sub-committees and the county agricultural committees will be kept out of the sphere of distribution, and that the local authorities will continue to be responsible for distribution. I believe I am correct in saying that there are no representatives of local authorities on the agricultural committees, with the exception of the medical officer of health, who may be on some of these committees. But he is there, perhaps in a different capacity. If it is the Minister's intention to widen the scope of activity of the milk sub-committees of the county agricultural committees, then I suggest that it would be right and proper that their membership should be widened to include direct representatives of the local authorities. That is the case I wish to present. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 15, line 43, leave out paragraph (a).—(Lord Burden.)

§ LORD CARRINGTON
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in saying that it was in the 1944 Act that the original power to appoint these committees was given, because at that time it was contemplated that the Milk and Dairies regulations would be operated by officials of the Ministry. It turned out otherwise, as the noble Lord has said. Since then, the agricultural executive committees have been set up, each with a milk subcommittee, and therefore the Minister does not find it necessary to appoint other committees, because all they would be doing would be to duplicate the functions which are being perfectly adequately performed at the present time. I can give the noble Lord the assurance he wants.
910 He may like to know the terms of reference of the committees. They are: To advise the agricultural executive committee on the discharge of such of the functions of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in the Milk and Dairies Regulations and the Milk (Special Designation) (Raw Milk) Regulations as have been delegated to it: to exercise such, of those functions as may be delegated to the sub-committee by the executive committee; and generally to advise on methods designed to achieve an improvement in the hygienic quality of milk. The noble Lord will see that those terms of reference do not include any reference to distribution or, for instance, to heat-treated milk. That will continue to be the province of the local authority. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

§ LORD BURDEN
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 18 [Disposed of samples taken for analysis]:

§ LORD CARRINGTON moved, in subsection (2) (c) (i) to leave out "effectively closed and sealed and." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this; Amendment is to carry out an undertaking that I gave to the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, on the question of samples of milk which had bean taken—that one sample which had been taken would be sent to the producer of that milk. The effect of this Amendment will be that part of a sample taken of milk in a churn or in a bottle with the name of the producer on it will be sent to the producer. I must confess that I am not altogether happy about the Amendment. I know exactly what the noble Earl and I want to do, but I am not altogether happy that my Amendment does it. However, as the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, has said, there will be another opportunity in this House of discussing the Bill. I should like to give notice that it may be necessary, to achieve what both of us have in mind, to move either another Amendment or perhaps some consequential Amendments to the one I now beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 17, line 14, leave out ("effectively closed and sealed and'').—(Lord Carrington.)

EARL ST. ALDWYN
My Lords, the noble Lord has some doubts about this Amendment and I must admit that I 911 share them. As we shall have another chance of moving Amendments at the next stage, if he and I could discuss this point I am sure we could produce a satisfactory solution.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD WALERAN moved to insert the following subsection: (4) If it appears to a sampling officer that any food, drug or substance of which he has procured a sample was manufactured, or put into its wrapper or container by a person (not being a person to whom one part of the sample is required to be given under this section) having his name and an address in the United Kingdom displayed on the wrapper or container, the officer shall within three days of procuring the sample send to that person a notice informing him that the sample has been procured by the officer and where the sample was taken, or, as the case may be, from whom it was purchased.

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recollect that at the Committee stage I put down an Amendment which, roughly, asked that whenever a sampling officer took samples, four samples instead of three should be taken. I also said that, if Her Majesty's Government could not accept that Amendment I would agree to the sending to the manufacturer of a rapid notification that samples had been taken. The noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, was kind enough to say that if we found some agreed form of words, I should put down another Amendment. Although this Amendment does not go so far as I should like, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, and I beg to move the Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 17, line 41, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Waleran.)

§ VISCOUNT WOOLTON
My Lords, I shall be glad to accept the Amendment.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD WALERAN
My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 18, line 15, after ("section") insert ("(except subsection (4))")—(Lord Waleran.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

912

§ Clause 23 [Commencement of proceedings]:

§ LORD CARRINGTON
This Amendment and the one which follows are designed to make it quite plain that the period of time which may be allowed to elapse before the commencement of proceedings includes the day on which the sample has been taken. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 21, line 10, after ("days") insert ("from the time when").—(Lord Carrington.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD CARRINGTON
My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 21, line 11, after ("months") insert ("beginning with the date on which").—(Lord Carrington.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 24. [Penalties and offences by corporations]:

§ LORD CARRINGTON
My Lords, this Amendment and also Amendments Nos. 33, 35, 37 and 38 are little more than drafting, in that they are necessary in order to bring the penalties for certain milk offences into line with the general penalties provided in Clause 24. The way in which it was done originally in the Bill was unsatisfactory. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 21, line 22, leave out lines 22 and 23.—(Lord Carrington.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD CARRINGTON
My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 21, line 26, leave out from ("consumption") to the end of line 31 and insert ("shall cease to have effect").—(Lord Carrington.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 32 [Minor and consequential amendments, repeals and savings]:

§ VISCOUNT WOOLTON moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is part of the Amendments made to Clause 9 and after Clause 11. It ensures that the alteration of the definition of the substance known as "artificial cream" shall precede the introduction of the new definition of "imitation cream". I beg to move.

913

§ Amendment moved— Page 27, line I, leave out subsection (20).—(Viscount Woolton.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Second Schedule [Minor and consequential amendments]:

§ The Food and Drugs Act, 1938 (1 & 2 Geo. 6. c. 56).

§ Section 100

§ In subsection (1), at the end of the definition of "animal" there shall be added the words "or fish"; it paragraph (c) of the proviso to the definition of "authorised officer", after the words "a sanitary inspector" there shall he inserted the words "a person having such qualifications as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister of Food and the Minister of Health acting jointly"; in the definition of "container", for the words "a package" there stall be substituted the words any basket, pail, tray, package."

§ LORD CARRINGTON
My Lords, this Amendment is designed to make it quite plain that a person other than a sampling officer who is submitting a sample for analysis is authorised only to send substances which are connected with food. As the Bill stands at the present time, it is not only limited to food. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 33, line 9, leave out ("and in subsection (2)").—(Lord Carrington.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD CARRINGTON
My Lords, this is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 33, line 10, at end insert— ("In subsection (2) after the words 'food or drug' there shall be inserted the words 'or substance capable of being used in the preparation of food'.")—(Lord Carrington.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD CARRINGTON
My Lords, it might well be that some public analysts might not have the necessary equipment to carry out certain of their functions. What this Amendment does is to make it plain that, if the equipment is not in the possession of the analyst, he is enabled to make use of the better facilities in another laboratory. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 33, line 12, at end insert— ("In subsection (4), after the word 'vacant' there shall he inserted the words 'or if the 914 public analyst for that area is for any reason unable to perform an effective analysis'.")—(Lord Carrington.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CAR RTNGTON
My Lords, this Amendment and Amendments Numbers 29, 30, 32 and 34 all give effect to an undertaking I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, on the question of consultation with organisations and other bodies. This Amendment is on the lines which he suggested, but the disadvantage of his Amendment was that it made particular mention of trade organisations but not of professional or local authority organisations. This Amendment takes care of that point. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 34, line 33, leave out ("subsections (2) and (4)") and insert ("subsection (2) in paragraph (f)").—(Lord Carrington.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD CARRINGTON
My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 34, line 35, leave out from ("jointly") to the end of line 36.—(Lord Carrington.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD CARRINGTON
My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 34, line 48, at end insert— (" For subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following subsection:— '(4) Before making the regulations the Minister of Food and the Minister of Health shall consult with such organisations as appear to them to be representative of interests substantially affected by the regulations.'")—(Lord Carrington.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ 4.20 p.m.

§ LORD BURDEN moved, in the proposed amendment of Section 100 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, to omit all words beginning "in paragraph (c)" down to and including "jointly." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I venture to think that this is an Amendment of some substance, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I take a moment or two in order to make clear what it is intended 915 to do. The inter-Departmental Committee on Meat Inspection recommended —I quote: That a course of theoretical and practical training should be provided to enable candidates from the butchery trade to qualify as meat inspectors; and that the Food and Drugs Act should be amended to enable such persons to act as authorised officers for the examination and seizure of meat. I concede that right away, because it seems to me that under the words which I am seeking to delete from the Bill, the Minister would have power to appoint persons of that kind if he were satisfied in other directions. The first point I should like to deal with is this. What is covered by the words "a knowledge of the butchery trade?" Do the words refer to that admirable person who whips the Sunday joint on to the scales, makes a lightning calculation and whips it off again, or do they refer to those who, as the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, will well know, were made redundant at the outbreak of war, the people engaged in the wholesale and importing trade—the people who have cost us, I believe, no doubt quite rightly, something like £3 million a year since 1940? If not, what do the words include?

§ I suggest to your Lordships that only approximately one per cent. of people engaged in the butchery trade—they would he the people who have been or are employed in slaughterhouses—would be the right and proper persons to discharge the functions which are necessary in regard to the inspection and seizure of diseased meat. How, for example, could a man who had only been weighing up joints have any knowledge of where to look for tubercular glands, or things of that kind, in a beast? I suggest that we must be very careful indeed so far as this matter is concerned. Meat and food inspection must be regarded as essentially a public health service. The officers who perform that work must have been, or should be, properly trained and equipped for their work, and should have acquired a sound public health background during their training. The task of meat inspection must be viewed from the public health angle and not from a narrow trade point of view. Most of the meat in this country is inspected by sanitary inspectors who are first trained to perform general 916 public health functions and then, as is noted in this Report of the inter-Departmental Committee, have to undergo special training in meat and food inspection. I want to make that point quite clear. There is, first of all, general public health training in environmental hygiene, and then the specific and special training in food and meat inspection. In this way they not only acquire the required professional skill, but develop the right attitude and approach to the work.

§ I do not want to say anything more about these animal salesmen, but I expect that everybody who, during the war period and subsequently, has had to buy meat from a butcher's shop has been aware of the attitude of salesmen, which has been, largely, one of "take it or leave it." That is not an attitude that one should attempt in carrying out public health functions. I suggest that these professionally trained people are the right people to carry out this important work. Anybody who has been in a slaughterhouse and seen a beast that has just been killed will not wonder why people should leave such a job. I am sure that, having seen it once, anybody who has a queasy stomach would not want to go again to see an operation like that. But as I say, only 1 per cent. of those people, and it may he some other admirable people, can qualify. I suggest that there ought not to be a short cut to this work that the people should have proper training, the same as other people engaged in this vital work of protecting the public. I submit to your Lordships that it would be quite wrong, and would be a retrograde step, to lower the professional standards and qualifications of those engaged in this most important work of safeguarding the health of the public. I most seriously hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to accept this Amendment. If he is unable to do so, if he thinks it is too narrow or limiting, I hope he will give us some sort of assurance that it will not be only on a narrow, limited sort of curriculum that these people will be able to qualify for an appointment in this work, but that they will have the broad general training of other inspectors carrying out this vital work of food inspection in the interests of the general public. I beg to move.

917

§ Amendment moved— Page 35, line 6, leave out from ("fish'') to ("in") m line 10.—(Lord Burden.)

§ VISCOUNT WOOLTON
My Lords, there is here no difference of intention between Her Majesty's Government and what the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has just said. If he will forgive me for saying so, he has been most moderate in the request that he has made of us.

§ LORD BURDEN
I hope that that is not a back-handed compliment—that sometimes I am not.

§ VISCOUNT WOOLTON
I should never have dreamed of suggesting that the noble Lord was other than moderate at all times. The noble Lord has quoted the inter-Departmental Committee; I am going to quote it to him in reply. I am sure that he and your Lordships will forgive me if I just repeat what is said there—namely, That a course of theoretical and practical training should be provided to enable candidates from the butchery trade to qualify as meat inspectors. I should like to assure the noble Lord that this is not just a question of selecting some butchers and, so to speak, rushing them through in order to meet a present need. I assure the noble Lord (although I do not think he needs any assurance from me) that all Governments are most anxious to retain the very high standard of sanitary inspection that we enjoy in this country from a body of professional people who are rendering great service, and I should be the last to suggest that, by some process of rapid dilution, we should reduce that standard. But we are faced with another problem—namely, the immediate problem. For the purpose of meat inspection we may have to face this issue: Are we to have a special body trained or are we to have no inspection? It would be fatal to have no inspection, and therefore the Ministers have decided that they will give special training, both theoretical and practical, to a body of people from a selected trade, who already know something about the subject, in order that they may become qualified to pass an examination so as to ensure that they are able to do the work that needs to be done. Regulations will be made prescribing the qualifications necessary.
I should not be frank if I did not say that these regulations will not be so wide 918 as those that have been in force for sanitary inspectors, who obtain a general qualification and cover a very wide sphere of sanitary inspection. These people will be trained for a special job. But I would appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, not to press this Amendment. I am assures by the Ministers that there will not be a particular problem. There will have to be an extended number of slaughterhouses, and consequently there will have to be an extended number of inspectors. I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment, after what I think are the very definite assurances that I have endeavoured to give him, that the Minister will have full regard to public safety and public health in the matter. I am sorry to have dept your Lordships rather a long time on this matter, but it is a very important one.

§ LORD MILNER OF LEEDS
My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount whether the appropriate associations, including the Sanitary Inspectors' Association, will be consulted before the regulations are made? I think that would be a factor in my noble friend's mind.

§ VISCOUNT WOOLTON
I have no authority in the matter, but I am sure the Minister would want to do that.

§ LORD CALVERLEY
My Lords, I speak from actual experience. I had the privilege for some years of serving on a committee which dealt with the training of butchers for this very job. We found that we had an answer in not only taking the practical butcher or slaughterman but also giving him theoretical training, so that he could understand what should be sold and what should not be sold. I can speak for many municipal authorities in the north, because I had the advantage of serving on a body which covered Lancashire, Derbyshire, Cumberland, Northumberland, Yorkshire and Durham. We were all striving for the very same end about which the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, has been talking. This system has been operating for some time, and now that we have the prospect, perhaps, of having more English beef, then it is right that we should have inspectors who are recruited from the trade, if they have that additional knowledge which the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, so much emphasises. It must be twenty years or more since I say this system actually 919 operating in several of our great municipal areas. We have already tried to go a long way. I am therefore not so pessimistic as, perhaps, is my noble friend on the Front Bench.
I think this job should not be given to the plumber or the plumber's mate. That is where sanitary inspectors are recruited from; they have been uplifted from that body of men. We are doing the same with butchers. If the honourable Member for Salford were present with us this afternoon, he would be able to assure your Lordships that the Butchers' Association is largely reactionary, because its members belong to the Party opposite. But I will say this for them: that they are doing a jolly good job in this regard. Therefore, I think we can rest assured that what the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, has told us will, in fact, be carried out, and that we can look forward, not to cheaper beef but to better beef; and also, perhaps, to dearer mutton, though something which we know is mutton.

§ LORD BURDEN
My Lords, with the consent of the House, I should like to respond to the conciliatory appeal made by the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton. If the House will allow me, I would say, in reply to my noble friend Lord Calverley, that I did consult the honourable Member for Salford before I made some of the remarks in my speech; but I should be the last one to endeavour to hamper or frustrate in any way the noble Viscount's desire to give us more "good red meat." But I am concerned, and so I am sure is the noble Viscount, that we should not lower the standards in public service. We should always try to raise, if possible, the standards in the public service. On the understanding which the noble Viscount has been good enough to give, that these regulations will be discussed with the appropriate associations. I have pleasure in asking the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT WOOLTON
I am obliged to the noble Lord.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD CARRINGTON
My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 28. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 35, line 24, at end insert— 920 ("Section 4

§ For subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection— '(2) The Ministers before making the regulations shall consult with such organisations as appear to them to be representative of interests substantially affected by the regulations.'").—(Lord Carrington.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD CARRINGTON
My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 35, line 26, at beginning insert— ("In subsection (5), for the words from the following to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words those specified in subsection (1) of section twenty-four of the, Food and Drugs Amendment Act, 1954.").—(Lord Carrington.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD CARRINGTON
My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 35, line 33, at end insert— ("Section 15

§ For subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection:— '(2) The Ministers before making such regulations shall consult with such organisations as appear to them to be representative of interests substantially affected by the regulations.").—(Lord Carrington.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD CARRINGTON
My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 35, line 39, at end insert— ("In subsection (3), for the words from the following to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words those specified in subsection (1) of section twenty-four of the Food and Drugs Amendment Act, 1954 '.").—(Lord Carrington.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT WOOLTON
My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 36, line 2, at beginning insert— ("In subsection (1) after the word cream in the third and fifth places where that word occurs, there shall be inserted the words or imitation cream and for the word artificial at the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words '"reconstituted" or "imitation" as the case may be. In subsection (2), after the word cream in the first and second places where that word occurs, there shall be inserted the words or imitation cream and after that word in the third place where it occurs there shall be inserted the words or "imitation cream", as the case may be'.").—(Viscount Woolton.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to

921

§ Third Schedule [Repeals]:

§ LORD CARRINGTON
My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, which is part of the Amendment to Clause 9 and the insertion after Clause 11 seeking to ensure that the definition of "artificial cream" should precede the definition of "imitation cream." It brings imitation cream within Section 29 of the 1950 Act, which provides that all vessels containing imitation cream shall be labelled accordingly.

§ Amendment moved— Page 38, line 6, column 3, leave out Tires 6 to 9.—(Lord Carrington.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD CARRINGTON
My Lords, beg to move this Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 38, line 16, column 3, leave out fines 16 to 19.—(Lord Carrington.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT WOOLTON
My Lords, I now beg to move, that the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

§ Moved, That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—(Viscount Woolton.)

§ On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House accordingly.

§ House adjourned during pleasure and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.