HL Deb 23 February 1954 vol 185 cc1040-63

2.40 p.m.

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

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

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clause 1:

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

(5) In determining for the purposes of 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.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME) moved, in subsection (5) to omit "of the consumption of that article by a person of normal health" and to insert: of that article on the health of a person consuming it. The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is to dispense with the words "of normal health" which it is thought would make unnecessary difficulties in the courts and elsewhere. I beg to move this Amendment, and the two following Amendments which are consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 8, leave out from ("effect") to ("but") in line 9, and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Home.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 10, leave out ("of the consumption by such a person").—(The Earl of Home.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

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

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, after subsection (5) to insert: (6) A food shall be deemed to be injurious to health if it contains or has been processed with any synthetically produced chemical unless the use of such chemical in relation to that particular food stuff has been permitted by regulations made by the Ministers.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is intended to prevent the use of chemicals in foodstuffs unless and except in so far as they have been officially approved under regulations made, as they can be made under this Bill. On the occasion of the English Bill we had some discussion about similar matters. I understand, of course, that the English Bill is in substance similar to this one. I understood then that one of the objections which the Government had to an Amendment which was moved was that it would prevent the use of such things as salt as a flavouring material, or bicarbonate of soda in baking, and a number of other things which are traditionally used in the preparation of food. I cannot myself see that there is any real objection to disclosing that things of that kind have been used, nor do I think that it would impose any great burden upon manufacturers if they were required to say so.

In order to meet that point, however, I have put down this Amendment in its present form, so that regulations may be made which would exempt from the necessity of disclosure such well-tried and customary ingredients in foodstuffs. But it is extremely important that there should be full disclosure to the public of other chemical substances, now running into many hundreds, which are used for various purposes in connection with the preparation of foods intended for sale to the public. Many of these have properties which are, as yet, quite unknown. A number of them have been found to be definitely toxic. Quite a number of articles which are still permitted to be used in this country have been banned by the Food and Drugs Administration in the United States because, as a result of experiments, they have been shown to be likely to be injurious to health. Examples of these are numerous. One class consists of the so-called Azo dyes, some of which have been proved to be toxic or to lead to the development of cancer, and all of them are under suspicion. So far I understand it is still permissible in this country to use most, if not all, of them. Then there are many other colouring and flavouring matters of a synthetic nature on which no adequate research has been done, and I submit that there is a prima facie case for preventing the use of them in foodstuffs. If they are to be permitted to be used in that way, the Government ought to take the responsibility of saying they can be used, and making it perfectly clear that they consider them to be safe. That is the purpose of this Amendment, and I beg to move it.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 11, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)

LORD SALTOUN

Before the discussion proceeds, I should like to know what is the noble Lord's definition of "synthetically produced." It seems to me to be a difficult thing to bring into an Act of Parliament. I do not know what the definition of the term is.

LORD DOUGLAS OF B.A.RLOCH

If I may he allowed to say so, I think the words define themselves. Most of us—and chemists in particular—know very well what it is to produce an article synthetically instead of using one which has been found to exist in nature.

THE EARL.OF HOME

The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, is being quite consistent, in that he has pursued this objective right the way through the English Bill and now he hopes to gain his object in the Scottish Bill. He wants, as his Amendment says, to prohibit the introduction of any synthetically produced ingredient in food unless it is approved in regulations. I think it simply would not be possible to review the whole of this field before the Bill becomes law. I would remind the noble Lord of the different requirements in the various clauses. Clause 1 places the onus on the manufacturer not to use substances injurious to health. That is one safeguard. Under Clause 5, the Ministers can call for any information they want, and under Clause L if the Ministers, after receiving that information, are convinced that the use of a certain substance is injurious to health they can make regulations accordingly. As I have said, I do not think it would be possible to review this whole field before the Bill becomes law. But on the assurance that it is the intention of the Ministers to work out, as soon as possible, a considered programme under Clauses 4 and 5, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, may feel that that is as far as we can practically go in existing circumstances, and will, therefore, be inclined to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

if it is the intention of the Government—and I should like to be quite clear about this point—to use the machinery which is provided in Clauses 4 and 5 in order to achieve the object which is envisaged in my Amendment, then, of course, I shall be happy to withdraw it. If that is the assurance which is given, I shall welcome it very much indeed. There is just one other thing I should like to say. It is true, in a sense, that, under Clause 1 of the Bill, the onus is imposed upon the manufacturer of a foodstuff not to sell anything which is injurious to health. But it is also true that under the scheme of this Bill the onus of proving that, in fact, it is injurious to health is thrown upon the consumer or else upon the public health authorities, who are not given any notice of what the content of any foodstuff is or of what has been added to it. I think that ought to be made clear, because if, in fact, there were an onus thrown on manufacturers to prove, before they sold anything, that it was not injurious to health, that would be a very different story from what is actually in the Bill.

THE EARL OF HOME

The Government have deliberately adopted the machinery of Clauses 4 and 5, by which the Ministers can first of all call for information and then, if, on that information, they are satisfied that a substance is injurious to health, they can make a regulation which will ban the use of that substance. The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, asks whether we shall arrive at the same goal as he wishes to reach. I am not sure whether we shall arrive at quite the same goal, but we shall get some way towards it, perhaps, under regulations made under the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not feel inclined to press his Amendment.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

The noble Earl has not given me as complete an assurance as I had hoped for. On the other hand, I know that these things must move by stages, and, in the circumstances, I would ask leave of the Committee to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Fraudulent sales of food and drugs]:

2.49 p.m.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved to add to the clause: (4) A food shall be deemed to be not of the quality demanded by the purchaser if any constituent has been abstracted so as to reduce its nutritional value, or if some synthetically produced chemical has been used in substitution of a natural substance.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the abstraction from foodstuffs of matters which have nutritive value, and also with the substitution for natural food substances of other things which may or may not have any nutritional value at all. Neither of those matters is dealt with in the Bill as it stands. It is serious if valuable nutritive elements are extracted from foods and the usefulness of food to the consumer is diminished. If that is done, some remedy ought to be provided. If this Amendment is accepted, it will still be permissible to do that under the Bill, provided there is a disclosure to the purchaser that that has been done. What I am proposing is not unduly onerous and need not necessarily interfere with any of the existing courses of manufacture. If a manufacturer wishes to continue to do what he has been doing, then he is afforded a defence by Clause 3 by disclosing to the purchaser what it is he has taken out of the food.

The same kind of argument applies with regard to the substitution of things which are not natural foodstuffs for substances which are. They may take many forms—for example, the substitution of artificial sweetening agents, such as saccharin, which have no nutritive value whatsoever, in place of sugar, which has a considerable nutritive value. Other examples are afforded by the baking industry, where many kinds of fat substitutes are used in place of lard and other natural fats which have long been a traditional means of producing cakes and other bakery products. If that is done, I think the consumer ought to have some protection. Again, a manufacturer can do it under this proposed Amendment if he makes use of the machinery under Clause 3 and discloses to the consumer what it is he has done. Therefore I commend this Amendment as affording to the general public a protection against having the value of their foods diminished. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 28, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)

THE EARL OF HOME

I do not think that I can accept the contention in the last part of the noble Lord's Amendment. The use of synthetic chemicals in substitution for natural constituents of foodstuffs may be justified. There is the case of the injection of vitamins into "white" bread and margarine. I have considered whether it would be possible to think again about the first part of the noble Lord's Amendment, and I will do so before Report stage, although I can hold out little chance of finding words that are likely to he suitable to him. As I see it, the first part of the Amendment, dealing with the abstraction from food of substances of nutritional value, might have the effect of making it impossible for anybody to produce corned beef, and it would be a roundabout way of making it illegal for anybody to eat anything but wholemeal bread. I cannot: get over these practical difficulties by finding new words which would suit the noble Lord's objective. If the noble Lord wishes, I will have a look at the first part of his Amendment before Report stage, but I do not hold out any hopes of an alteration which would suit him and I would ask your Lordships to resist this Amendment.

LORD SALTOUN

I should be sorry if your Lordships were to accept the second part of the Amendment. When I was young, children were fed on bread and jam, which was made of glucose. I do not know whether the noble Lord considers glucose to be synthetic, but we cannot get jam like that nowadays, made with glucose. In those days that world have come under the noble Lord's ban.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

It is interesting to know that jam is less good to-day because of a lack of glucose. If the noble Lord wants to find out the reasons—because there are a number of them—they lie in another direction. A great deal of jam is made not out of fresh fruit, but out of fruit which has been preserved with anti-staling agents, such as sulphur dioxide, and it has to he bleached and recoloured with chemical dyes in order to make it look like natural fruit. It is adulterated by pectin or other extenders in order to reduce the amount of the more valuable ingredients which are contained in it, and in fact it does not contain, as the best jam made at home does, fresh fruit and sugar, which is all that is necessary to make the most excellent jam. I do not want to pursue the details of this matter.

Let me come back to what the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has said. He said the second part of my Amendment would prevent the addition of vitamins to foodstuffs such as margarine and bread. I do not think that is correct, because, as I explained to your Lordships, this clause has to be read with Clause 3, which succeeds it; and, as I understand it, Clause 3 affords a defence to a food manufacturer if he discloses to the consumer what it is he has done. I would far sooner have my vitamins as natural products then as synthetic products, and there is evidence to show that the synthetic products do not achieve quite the same results as the natural ones. Perhaps that is not altogether surprising, because the more we know about the subject the more complex we find the constituents of natural foodstuffs to he. In the last twenty or thirty years innumerable things, which are shown to be essential to health, have been discovered which nobody ever dreamed of before. That is why I think, on the face of it, there is a case against the addition of synthetic chemicals to foodstuffs. I think it is right to make that clear, but I am willing to withdraw this Amendment and upon Report stage try to produce it, in part at any rate, in a form which meets the difficulties the noble Earl has explained.

THE EARL OF HOME

I do not want to mislead the noble Lord. I do not see any chance of meeting his point on the Report stage. T have tried as hard as I can to see whether there is any way in which I could do so, but I have failed to find one. I cannot see how we could get away from the words of the noble Lord's Amendment, or talk round them. However I will look at it again, but on the understanding that I am afraid I shall not make much progress in the direction the noble Lord wants.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

I understand that that is not a pledge on the part of the noble Earl.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 [Defences available in proceedings under s. 2]:

THE EARL OF HOME moved, in subsection (1) to omit paragraph (a). The noble Earl said: This Amendment is moved to ensure that nobody will be able to plead in defence that the addition or subtraction of any constituent in the food was necessary to preserve it in carriage. It is a clarification made after the English Bill went through your Lordship's House, and I feel that it is desirable to include it in this Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 37, leave out lines 37 to 40.—(The Earl of Home.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF HOME

This is a drafting Amendment to clarify the wording. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 44, after the first ("or") insert ("was sold").—(The Earl of Home.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF HOME

This is a further drafting Amendment to clarify the wording. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 44, leave out ("containing") and insert ("displaying").—(The Earl of Home.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Regulations as to composition of food, etc.

4.—(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:—

  1. (a) for requiring, prohibiting or regulating the addition of any specified substance, or any substance of any specified class, to food intended for sale for human consumption 1048 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;
  2. (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;

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, in subsection (1) (a) to leave out "requiring." The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the one immediately following are directed to the same purpose and, for convenience. I will speak on them both at the same time. This is a matter which was discussed upon the English Bill, and I shall not detain your Lord- ships by repeating at any length what I then said. The object of this Amendment is to deprive the Government of the power to insist upon the addition of anything which they please to some article of food—for example, the proposal which we discussed not long ago to add iodine to salt, or the practice which is now in operation of adding chalk to bread. This latter may not be a particularly obnoxious practice because, though it is probably of no value, it has little detrimental effect. However, a power of this kind is one which we ought not to admit. It is an infringement of the liberty of the subject to oblige him to take medication whether he needs it or not, and it is the antithesis of all rational medical practice. Although I do not expect to be successful in persuading the Government to accept this Amendment, I feel that, as a matter of principle, this point must be made upon the Scottish Bill just as it was made upon the English Bill. So far as I know, it is the first time that anything of this kind has been proposed as part of the permanent legislation of this country. As we all know, it was done under emergency powers during war time, and it may or may not have had some temporary justification. But to make it part of the permanent machinery of the State that the Government can oblige people to eat or drink things, irrespective of their inclination, is a power so arbitrary and so far-reaching that I feel it ought not to be accepted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 25, leave out ("requiring").—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)

THE EARL OF HOME

We must all respect the pertinacity of the noble Lord; if he cannot get a thing one way, lie tries another. His slogan is "Pure natural food, undiluted and unadulterated in any way." However, there is a strong belief held by others that health is not only maintained but improved by the addition of certain substances; and our experience in the war would seem to sustain that point of view. If this Amendment were accepted, it would be impossible to add nutrients or vitamins to flour, or to the various substances about which we have been talking—iodine to salt, fluorine to water, and the rest. Of course, Ministers will make it their business to obtain the best possible advice in applying this clause. The noble Lord said that he does not expect me to accept this Amendment, and I will not disappoint him: I am afraid that I cannot do so.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

I beg to move the next Amendment formally, in order to have it on record.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 32, leave out ("requiring").—(Lord Douglas of Badoch.)

On Question, Amendment negatived.

3.9 p.m.

LORD TEVIOT moved 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: When I was in the other place we there had a Pharmacy Bill, under which it was decided that all patent medicines—in fact, any medicine in a bottle or other container—should have the ingredients stated on the cut-side. I want to ensure the same thing with regard to patent foods, so that the housewife will know what she is giving to her children. She may find that she is giving her children for breakfast a particular food with a certain chemical in it. That infinitesimal amount of chemical may be all right, provided that it is given for breakfast only, and not during the rest of the day. My point is that, if the housewife knows about these chemicals being in the food, she will make sure that her children do not get too much of a particular chemical. My suggestion on the English Bill did -not meet with the approval of the Govern- ment, and so I have tried here to put it in a different way. I now want to know whether they will publish a list of chemicals and other ingredients which may be added to any article of food. If that could be done, and if the list could be easily obtainable by the housewives, then I should have gone some way towards getting what I want. We know perfectly well, and the medical profession know perfectly well, that a person can take a certain amount of chemical without its doing him any harm. If he takes more, however, it builds up in his system, and I wish to obviate all that sort of thing. I take the view that this matter is a serious one in regard to the health of the people in this country. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to accept this Amendment, which it seems to me will enable housewives and all those who take an interest in this subject to know what is permissible in the way of adding drugs and chemicals to foodstuffs. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 3, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Teviot.)

THE EARL OF HOME

The object of this Amendment can be achieved under the regulations for which the Bill provides. Under the regulations the Ministers may prohibit or they may allow. In the case when they allow ingredients to he used in a particular foodstuff, or when they prohibit them, regulations will be published. If I can help the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, by arranging for more comprehensive lists, I shall be glad to do so, but it can be done administratively without an Amendment such as he has moved.

LORD TEVIOT

I thank my noble friend for his reply to my Amendment. It seems to me that he has met me all along the line, and with the permission of the House I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF HOME

This Amendment directs Ministers, in making regulations as to the composition of food, to restrict, so far as possible, the use of substances that are of no nutritional value. I think that, for that reason, this Amendment will be welcomed by the Committee. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 4, line 3, at end insert— (2) In the exercise of their functions under this section the Ministers shall have regard to the desirability of restricting, so far as practicable, the use of substances of no nutritional value as foods or as ingredients of foods."—(The Earl of Home.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 [Labels and advertisements describing incorrectly food or drugs]:

THE EARL OF HOME

It is proposed by this Amendment to leave out the words "nature, substance or." It is thought that if these words are left in the Bill there will be room for endless argument in court proceedings as to whether the advertisement misled as to the nature or the substance or the quality of the food, and that it is better to rest on the quality of the food, rather than include the words "nature" and "substance" as well. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 29, leave out ("nature, substance or").—(The Earl of Home.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Regulations as to labelling and description of food .—(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the last foregoing section, the Ministers may make regulations for imposing requirements as to, and otherwise regulating, the labelling marking or advertising of food intended for sale for human consumption, and the descriptions which may be applied to such food.

LORD SEMPILL moved, in subsection (1) to substitute "shall" for "may" where that word first occurs. The noble Lord said: When your Lordships last debated this Bill I submitted a suggestion in regard to the clear labelling of all packaged foodstuffs. I suggested that the regulations which normally maintain in all chemists' shops under which when one goes in there to buy medicines of one kind or another all are clearly labeled, should maintain also so far as foodstuffs are concerned. Since there may be up to 700 different chemical substances used in the production, processing and packaging of food, it is essential, in my view, that these substances should be specifically declared on the label of the container. At other times when food has been debated in your Lordships' House this suggestion has been strongly supported by the noble Lords, Lord Silkin, Lord Hankey, Lord Teviot and Lord Douglas of Barloch. On a previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 184, col. 491): …the parts of this Bill that appeal to me are those designed to deal with misleading labels and advertisements.… Surely, that is a clear indication that the labels should state what is in the package.

When this matter was before your Lordships on December 3, the noble Earl the Minister of State for Scotland referred sympathetically to this suggestion and spoke of "honest labelling." He pointed out that labelling provisions were taken care of in Clauses 6 and 7. When a like suggestion was made on the English Bill, the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, referred to Clause 5 of that Bill as having similar provisions. The clause to which I particularly wish to direct attention this afternoon is Clause 7, which most certainly gives the Ministers power to label. This clause is entirely permissive, and I hope your Lordships will support my Amendment, and that the noble Earl the Minister of State for Scotland will agree, to change this one word "may" to "shall," so as to make that clause obligatory.

As the bulk of foodstuffs which the housewife buys is in a container or wrapper, the rapid implementation of clear labelling provides no difficulty. The housewives are becoming more and more food conscious, and are rightly alarmed at the adulteration, sophistication, substitution, abstraction, medication and contamination, that may, and all too often I submit do, occur in the production, processing and packaging of foodstuffs.

I beg the noble Earl to agree to my Amendment. I can assure him that this is no fancy of a few Members of your Lordships' House, but the keen wish of the housewives of Scotland who this morning, through Mistress Elizabeth Pattullo of Glamis, the Secretary of the Scottish Housewives' Association, sent me the following telegram which, with your Lordships' permission, I will read. It is very short and to the point, and says: We wish you in the name of the Scottish Housewives Association to secure honest labelling of foodstuffs as suggested by you in the House of Lords in the debate on February 16. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 2, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Sempill.)

THE EARL OF HOME

It is not the first time that this controversy, as to whether the word in a Bill shall be "may" or "shall," has been raised in Parliament. The trouble with the word "shall" is that it makes it absolutely mandatory on a Minister, and would imply that the Minister should, therefore, make regulations about every sort and kind of food without; exception. I do not think the case is made out for that wholesale treatment of all food in the country. It would be better to give the Minister some discretion, and it is the intention of the Minister to continue the policy of making regulations as to labelling of food wherever there seems to be justification. I do not know if the noble Lord has appreciated that his Amendment would make it absolutely mandatory in the case of all foodstuffs.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

Is that interpretation of the noble Lord's Amendment correct? If the Amendment is accepted, this subsection will say: … the Ministers shall make regulations for imposing requirements as to, and otherwise regulating, the labelling, marketing or advertising of food. But is it not possible in the regulations to say that certain articles of food need not be labelled? Would not that be a regulation made under the mandatory provision? In other words, the regulations would require articles of food generally to be labelled but could provide that there would be certain exceptions. Therefore, I venture to submit that the noble Earl's objection to the noble Lord's Amendment is not entirely well-founded. Certainly it is extremely desirable that as a general rule there should he some kind of regulation requiring foodstuffs to be labelled. That is something which is done in almost every civilised country. Many of us were very thankful to see, during the course of the late War and the subsequent stringency, food parcels given by generous donors in other countries, all carefully labelled to explain the composition of the food, and, in many cases, going a stage further than that and explaining in what ways the foodstuffs had been processed. Therefore there is nothing unusual about this proposal, nor is there any insuperable difficulty in carrying it out.

LORD SILKIN

I should like to say a few words about this Amendment. Throughout the debate on this Bill and, if I may make reference to it, on another Bill also, the same point has figured and the same principle applies. It has always been an answer, on this 'question of labelling, that the Minister has power to make regulations; and in some instances the Bill has gone further and said that it is the intention to make regulations. On that statement I and many others have thought we might let the matter rest. If it really is the intention of the Minister to make regulations on this question of labelling, then we should be satisfied; but as things stand at: present he is not under any obligation. Now the noble Earl says that under this Amendment the Minister would be required to make regulations in respect of all foodstuffs. It may be so: I should not wish to enter into any legalistic argument on the subject. But that is, not a reason for entirely rejecting the, principle of the Amendment. It is no doubt a reason for saying that this particular Amendment will not do. I ask the noble Earl to look at it again and see whether he cannot meet the wishes of those who have been pressing this, matter all along, and, in fact, fulfil what he has given the Committee to understand is the intention of Her Majesty's Government.

THE EARL OF HOME

I have not rejected this Amendment out of hand because I wanted to hear what noble Lords felt about the matter. My trouble is that under the subsection as it is drafted the Minister may make a regulation saying that something shall be labelled, but he cannot make a regulation saving that something shall not be labelled. But if the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, asks me to do so, I will certainly look again at the wording of this clause. We think that the present wording allows the Minister to fulfil this discretion; and if the Minister intends to exercise the discretion to label fairly large numbers of foodstuffs it may not be necessary to label the whole. We think that that discretion is necessary, but, as I say, I will look into the matter again.

LORD SEMPILL

I am grateful to the noble Earl for saying that he will look into this matter again. May I ask him whether he would be in favour—I presume he would—of all manufacturers of products who wished to do so fully labelling their products, stating clearly just what they contain? I think it would be useful if the Minister were to say an encouraging word in regard to that. As your Lordships know, the official mind is very label-conscious at the moment, and there may be a certain resistance in the noble Earl's mind, in view of the fantastic stories that are going round about what is alleged to have been happening in the dungeon's under Waterloo Station, where, and all because of a label, a lot of useful crockery is being broken up—as great an Aunt Sally show as any of your Lordships could ever hope to attend. It would be a good idea if the noble Earl could invite his Scots colleagues to such a party and arm them with pots of "witches' brew" jam—a product of fruit pulp preserved in sulphur dioxide—to shy at the plates with the offending letters. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment in view of the Minister's promise to look into the matter again.

LORD SALTOUN

As the noble Lord has mentioned the matter, I think I ought to draw his attention to the fact that this story about Waterloo Station has been contradicted to-day in The Times—I think officially.

LORD CROOK

May I suggest that, in fairness to the British Railways and their catering department, the noble Lord should withdraw this imputation, because it is a newspaper mare's nest, which has been completed refuted to-day.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 [Regulations as to food hygiene]:

THE EARL OF HOME

We thought we should define persons who were to be responsible for food hygiene regulations. We have been able to define such persons in the Bill, and that is the object of this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 3, leave out from ("may") to the end of line 9 and insert ("impose responsibility for compliance with those requirements on the occupier of the premises and, in the case of requirements of a structural character, on any owner of the premises who either lets them for use for a purpose to which the regulations apply or permits them to be so used after notice from the authority charged with the enforcement of the regulations").—(The Earl of Home.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD MATHERS

I should like to say a few words on this subject. This is a great regulation-authorising clause, and I want to make special reference to the first part of it, where the nature and the substance of the regulations are not so specifically defined as they are in subsection (2). I particularly want to make reference to regulations regarding the exposure of the various goods that come within the ambit of this Bill. The word "contamination" has already been used in connection with the previous Amendment, and it is to guard against contamination that I ask the Government to make sure that the regulations are made in very firm, strong, and clear terms. I will give only two instances of what I have in mind. Dogs are admitted to shops, and in greengrocers' shops, for example, many goods are standing about, exposed, without protection, and they are down on the level of the floor. One finds dogs in the shop, sniffing and blowing around the food—and worse. Either there should be a prohibition on dogs entering shops where goods are exposed in that way, or there should be an obligation upon the shopkeeper to see that any possibility of contamination is prevented. I will not dwell upon that matter. I am sure that what I am aiming at in the remarks I have just made will be quite clear.

Another instance I cite is that of the baker's shop, where fine cakes are shown on the counter, temptingly laid out. I know that many ladies go into those shops and regard those cakes as most tempting. There is a real temptation to them to buy them, and it is a real struggle for them, in many cases, to refrain from buying them. They do so only by the severe discipline that they impose on themselves, a kind of "Waste not, want not" idea. If they do not refrain from buying those things, then they will have no waist-line worth talking about or looking at. I look upon this sort of thing as perhaps the most wasteful way—another spelling of "waist"—of using sugar, fats and flour. However, that is by the way. These goods are exposed and people, including ladies, go into these shops, sometimes smoking. It seems to me that smoking should be prohibited where delicate goods of that nature are exposed and within reach of being contaminated in that way, not only by the smoke itself but also by the tobacco ash, about which some people are careless. I have made my point and given two instances. I hope that I can have an assurance from the Minister that this form of possible contamination will he looked at carefully, and that regulations will be math, to ensure that goods are handed over to the people in as clean a state as possible.

THE EARL OF HOME

I will certainly give that assurance. This clause has deliberately been made wide enough to cover such instances and possibilities as those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mathers. In the framing of regulations I shall be glad to have discussions with him as to what might reasonably be covered, and to deal with any further points he has in mind.

LORD MATHERS

I thank the noble Earl warmly for the way in which he has received my remarks.

Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14 [Registration of slaughterers, manufacturers and traders]:

THE EARL OF HOME

This is really a clarification Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 25, after ("premises") insert (", vehicle, stall or place").—(The Earl of Home.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15 [Refusal, etc., of registration under s. 14]:

THE EARL OF HOME moved, in paragraph (c) of subsection (1), after "unsuitable" to insert: having regard to their situation, construction or condition, or to any activities carried on therein. The noble Earl said: In the English Bill I believe that it was thought that the word "unsuitable," occurring in the corresponding paragraph of the Bill, might lead people to take into account matters not relevant to the public health. This Amendment seems to provide a reasonable qualification here. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 2, after ("unsuitable") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Home.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 16 to 25 agreed to.

Clause 26 [Establishment by local authority of cold stores]:

THE EARL OF HOME moved, in subsection (1), to omit "who have provided or are about to provide a slaughterhouse." The noble Earl said: In Scotland, we want a definition which will give power to any local authority to provide a cold store where necessary. English local authorities have a wide power to provide cold stores under Section 62 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. This Amendment gives a similar power to Scottish local authorities. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 1, leave out from ("authority") to ("may") in line 2.—(The Earl of Home.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to.

Clause 29 [Powers of sampling]:

THE EARL OF HOME

Under subsection (4), as it stands at present, the sampling officer is restricted as to the places at which he, may take samples on request. There is no such restriction on him if he himself initiates the taking of samples. We think it reasonable that there should not he any restriction on him when he is requested to take samples. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 30, leave out ("in the course of or at the place of delivery").—(The Earl of Home.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 30 [Right to have samples analysed]:

THE EARL OF HOME

This Amendment again corresponds to one in the English Bill. It is intended to ensure that a private person who is submitting a sample for analysis under this clause will not be permitted to send substances unconnected with food. The local authority sampling officer is already limited, by the terms of Clause 29, to substances connected with food. I commend this Amendment to your Lordships as bringing this clause into line with the other clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 2, after ("substance") insert ("capable of being used in the preparation of food").—(The Earl of Home.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF HOME

This Amendment is to enable the public analyst who is unable to perform an effective analysis, probably because he does not possess the necessary equipment, to make use of the superior facilities which may be available in the laboratory of another public analyst. It is a convenience which I think we should put into the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 13, after ("vacant") insert (", or if the public analyst for that area is for any reason unable to perform an effective analysis,").—(The Earl of Home.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 31 [Disposal of samples taken for analysis]:

3.40 p.m.

THE EARL OF HOME

The effect of this Amendment is, that where the name or address of a manufacturer or packer appears on an article sampled the sampling officer must inform him that he has taken a sample and from whom it was taken. The underlying reason for this is, I think, quite fair—namely, that where goods have been pre-packed by a manufacturer, and proceedings may eventually be brought against him, he should be notified at the earliest possible moment that a sample has been taken. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 22, line 10, at end insert— ("(4) If it appears to a sampling officer that any food, (rug 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 Earl of Home.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF HOME

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 27, after ("section") insert ("(except subsection (4))").—(The Earl of Home.)

On Question,. Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 31, as amended, shall stand part of this Bill?

LORD SALTOUN

May I ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether he thinks that "three days" is correct? Would not "immediately" be more satisfactory?

THE EARL OF HOME

I will look at that point.

Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32 [Special provisions as to the sampling of milk and proceedings subsequent thereto]

THE EARL OF HOME

The next two Amendments are merely drafting Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 39, leave out from ("area") to ("authorised") and insert ("an")—(The Earl of Home.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 40, leave out ("the medical officer or other") and insert ("an").—(The Earl of Home.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 33 agreed to.

Clause 34 [Provision as to cases in which division of sample into parts is impracticable]:

THE EARL OF HOME

This is really a drafting Amendment to simplify the wording. The clause makes special arrangements for the sampling of goods in unopened containers. The practice is to divide a sample into three parts—or, where it is not possible to divide the sample into three, to have three separate tins of tinned food. I am afraid that, as a result of this Amendment, the clause now reads rather like the instructions for the "three-card trick." I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 18, leave out ("the requisite number of") and insert ("three").—(The Earl of Home.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 35 to 41 agreed to.

Clause 42 [Proceedings]:

THE EARL OF HOME

This Amendment makes it clear that the day on which the sample is procured is counted in the two months within which the proceedings, if any, must be commenced. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 46, leave out ("from the time when") and insert ("beginning with the date on which").—(The Earl of Home.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 43 and 44 agreed to.

Clause 45 [Power of court to require analysis by Government Chemist]:

THE EARL OF HOME

This is a drafting Amendment which makes good an omission in the drafting of the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 27, after ("be") insert ("sufficient").—(The Earl of Home.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 46 to 56 agreed to.

Clause 57 [Orders and regulations]:

THE EARL OF HOME moved, in subsection (6), to leave out all words after "such" and to insert: organisations as appear to them to he representative of interests substantially affected by the orders or regulations, as the case may be. The noble Earl said: I think this is a provision which the Committee will welcome. It is an attempt to render somewhat more precise the obligation upon Ministers to carry out adequate consultations before making regulations. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 29, leave out from ("such") to end of line and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Home.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 58 agreed to.

Clause 59 [Interpretation]:

THE EARL OF HOME

This is an attempt to see that the word "analyse" is interpreted in the same way as the word "analysis." I am assured that those who work out these things know what this Amendment means, and that it is necessary. I hope the Committee agree. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 35, at end insert ("and 'analyse' shall De construed accordingly;").—(The Earl of Home.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF HOME

This Amendment and the next are intended to cover a case which is not purely that of a slaughter-house only, but may be that of a. stable or premises which are essential to the business of a slaughter-house. It is a slight widening of the term "premises." I beg to move this and the following Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 4, after ("premises") insert ("or place other than premises").—(The Earl of Horne.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 40, after ("premises") insert ("or place other than premises").—(The Earl of Home.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF HOME

This Amendment is intended to secure that, where meals are supplied free of charge by a catering establishment—for instance, to their employees—the supply shall be regarded as a sale and, accordingly, is brought within the ambit of the Bill. The ordinary business of catering establishments is, of course, undoubtedly within the ambit of the Bill. This Amendment brings in that part of the business which would otherwise have been outside. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 3, after ("any") insert ("catering establishment.").—(The Earl of Home.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 59, as amended agreed to.

Clause 60 agreed to.

Clause 61 [Minor amendments, repeals and savings]:

THE EARL OF HOME

Subsection (4) was included in the Bill by an oversight. It was put into an earlier draft of the Bill, but is now no longer necessary. I beg to move that we leave it out.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 17, leave out subsection (4).—(The Earl of Home.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clause and Schedules agreed to.

House resumed.