Lords Sitting of 20 January 1954

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

LORD HORE-BELISHA
2.35 p.m.
The Right Honourable Leslie Hore-Belisha, having been created Baron Hore-Belisha, of Devonport in the County of Devon—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

TRADE WITH CHINA
2.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that under an agreement based on the Sino-Japanese Trade Agreement of June 1, 1952, the classified list of exports from Japan to China includes copper, aluminium ingots, steel plates, steel pipes and tubes, tin plates, black steel sheets, galvanised iron sheets, steel drum sheets, structural steel materials, railway equipment, heavy machinery, ocean-going vessels, cranes, ball bearings and trucks; and whether British traders have been, or will be granted licences to export commodities of similar nature to China.]
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the Agreement to which the noble Lord refers was concluded in October last year, and was a purely private arrangement reached between an unofficial Japanese delegation and the Chinese authorities. It was thus similar to the arrangement made in Pekin in July, 1953, between the Chinese and a group of British businessmen, and is similarly subject to Governmental controls. Her Majesty's Government have been assured by the Japanese Government that its conclusion in no way affects the operation of their controls on strategic trade with China. These controls are similar to our own, and involve an embargo on the export to China of
298
strategic commodities within these categories under the United Nations Resolution of May, 1951.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I take it that no materials of the nature indicated in my Question are passing between Japan and China?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, to the, best of our knowledge and belief, that is so
2.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the urgent necessity in the interests of the British economy to increase exports; of the improbability that American tariffs will be reduced; and of the unlikelihood of hostilities again breaking out in Korea, they will consider the advisability of initiating such steps as will lead to unrestricted trade between the United Kingdom, Hong Kong and other Crown Colonies on the one hand, and China on the other.]
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, we all agree with the noble Viscount as to the urgent need to increase our exports. But the embargo on strategic exports to China is applied in discharge of our obligations under the United Nations Resolution of May, 1951; and, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, reconsideration of the embargo, in concert with the other members of the United Nations, must depend on the more favourable development of events in the Far East. As your Lordships are only too well aware, our hopes that the Korean armistice would lead to more normal conditions have unfortunately not so far been fulfilled.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, I should like to ask whether he is aware that during the year 1952, the trade of Hong Kong fell from £100 million sterling to £26 million sterling, and that Hong Kong traders are watching a process under which trade with China is being taken away from them by their competitors. As I suggest in my Question, I should also like to ask Her

299
Majesty's Government to take the earliest possible steps to initiate some efforts that will lead to unrestricted trade between the United Kingdom and China.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, as to the first supplementary question of the noble Viscount, we are all only too well aware of the handicaps under which Hong Kong labours, as a result of her loyal observance of this Agreement. Hong Kong is as hard hit as anyone, and I think we owe the traders and merchants of Hong Kong our thanks for the loyal and uncomplaining way in which they are labouring under this disadvantage. With regard to the second half of the noble Viscount's supplementary question, I would only add that this is a matter of acting in concert with our friends, and we are all anxiously awaiting the moment at which some change can be made. Unfortunately, that moment of time does not seem to have arrived yet.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am interested in the noble Lord's reply, and before the matter is closed may I ask this question? Is it not a fact that the United States Assistant Secretary has made a public pronouncement—I think to a Press conference—that in the course of the coming year they are going to move to expand their present trade with the Eastern countries? I had rather hoped that the noble Lord might have been able to say a little more than he has to-day about the promise in that direction, seeing that in the past there have been many American objections even to the amount of trade which we have been doing.
LORD MANCROFT: I believe there has been some pronouncement recently from American sources, but I should not like to answer the last question categorically without further notice.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, in considering this question should we not be wise to remember that the Chinese are still supporting the war in Indo-China, and that any suggestion for going so far as unrestricted trade might produce undesirable reactions in France, particularly at this delicate juncture?
LORD MANCROFT: That was precisely the difficulty which I was trying to underline.

COMET AIRCRAFT DISASTER
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make on the recent disaster to a Comet aircraft.]
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, the House will be aware that my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation went to Italy on Sunday and returned yesterday evening. After Question Time in another place, he will be making a statement on the result of his visit, and with your Lordships' permission I will repeat that statement in this House somewhere between half-past three and four o'clock.

FOOD AND DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
2.52 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.—(Viscount Woolton.)
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 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.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "of normal health." The noble Lord said: The subsection to which this Amendment relates recognises I think for the first time in our legislation that substances may be injurious to health because of the cumulative effect of partaking of them over a

301
long period—perhaps for months, or perhaps for years. In that respect I am delighted to see that the matter is included in the Bill. It is, however, extremely difficult to detect the long-term effects of substances which are not immediately toxic, because there are so many other factors, in addition to any particular cause, which affect human health. I am moving to leave out the words "of normal health" because they appear to me to be calculated to make this task of interpretation even more difficult. I do not know what is intended to be conveyed by the words "a person of normal health." I do not think that such a phrase has ever before appeared in any Statute or been the subject of judicial interpretation.
According to the Oxford Dictionary, the word "normal" means regular or usual, or conforming to a common type or standard. But in the connection in which the word appears here, the first point that arises is: does it mean the usual health of one particular individual? That, indeed, may well be an extremely variable thing. In the course of a lifetime people suffer from various complaints, and the state of their health varies from time to time. Or is this phrase intended to mean a person who is in good or perfect health? If so, equal difficulty of interpretation is likely to arise, and, mere than that, the scope of this provision would be unduly narrowed because it is surely important to protect the health of persons who are not in good health. According to the statistics, the majority of the population, so far as one can see, is not in a state of perfect health and certainly there are few individuals who, in the course of their lives, are constantly in that happy condition. It is surely absolutely essential that we should protect the health of persons who are in a sub-normal condition of health. They are just as much entitled to be protected as other people. There are large classes of persons—the consumptives, let us say, and others—who are just as entitled to protection from the adulteration of foodstuffs, because it would affect them in their particular condition, as is the rest of the community. I feel somewhat fortified in this argument by the report of the Chief Medical Officer of Health which was published a few days ago, in which he says:
"It is paradoxical that records of sickness and death should be our main index of the
302
state of the public health. The explanation is that we still lack a method of measuring directly the health of the nation."
I will not read the whole of this rather interesting passage, but it does emphasise the point which I want to make: that these words will be extremely difficult of interpretation, and it is possible that they might deprive many persons of the benefit of this Bill who are entitled to it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, leave out ("of normal health").—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
LORD BURDEN: May I say just a word or two in support of this Amendment moved by my noble friend? I would suggest that with the words "of normal health" in, nonsense is made of the clause. My noble friend is learned in the law, and I am looking at this purely as a layman. It seems to me that if those words are retained it will be illegal to sell any article of food injurious to health to someone who can be proved to be in normal health, but quite legal to sell it to someone who is suffering from any illness. For example, it would be quite legal for some firm to advertise that a certain food is good for people suffering from tuberculosis or who have cancer or some similar disease. It might be proved that that article of food was injurious to those unfortunate people, but under this clause, as I read it, no action would he against those people. In those circumstances, I hope the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, will accept this Amendment.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: I should like to know whether the noble Lords, when seeking to include people who are not in normal health, wish to include patients suffering from diabetes, nephritis, and other conditions, who might be very seriously injured by some food product, which was quite free from any possibility of rendering injury to people in normal health.
LORD CAWLEY: There are certain people who are allergic to certain conditions. They may be otherwise in normal health, but because they are perhaps allergic to strawberries they are not quite in normal health. I was once, for a short period of my life, allergic to codfish. I was in good health otherwise, but I could hardly be classed as in normal health. I think that is a reason for not agreeing

303
to this Amendment. It is known that people who are allergic to certain kinds of things—for instance, I believe the bad or even the ordinary dyeing of furs—have in many cases exploited that abnormality to their own advantage. I suggest that we have in these words a necessary safeguard for the trader.
LORD BURDEN: May I point out to the noble Lord who has just spoken that a person may be in normal health by definition but at the same time allergic to a certain food, and that under this clause he would be able to recover damages if any particular food upset him?
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: May I set the minds of noble Lords at rest, if that is possible, on this matter? I am grateful to the noble Lord who has brought his expert knowledge to bear to show that the Parliamentary draftsman, when he drafted this clause originally, was not quite so foolish as has been suggested. The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, is learned in the law, and so is the Parliamentary draftsman, and the last thing I am going to try to do is to judge between the two; but I was much impressed by the thought that perhaps the words "of normal health" were going to provide an undue amount of business to the courts if they were left in. Therefore, we had some consultations with the Ministry. I am going to ask the noble Lord whether he will be good enough to withdraw his Amendment on condition that on the Report stage I insert these words:
" 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 that article on the health of a person consuming it but also to the probable cumulative effect of articles of substantially the same composition on the health of a person consuming such articles in ordinary quantities."
I think that, so far as I can understand it, this meets the noble Lord's point. If that will meet his convenience, I shall be glad to put that in at the Report stage. It will, perhaps, be better for the House if I do it then rather than now, because it has not been circulated and noble Lords naturally want further time to consider it. That is as far as I can go. I cannot accept the Amendment as
304
it stands because I am assured by competent legal authorities that it would make confusion even more confounded.
LORD SILKIN: I think the noble Viscount has made a most reasonable offer, and I should certainly advise my noble friend to accept it. It does not mean we are committed to accept the Amendment on the Report stage. We should, of course, like to look at it again: but, subject to that, this suggestion seems all right to me at first hearing.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the suggestion he has made, which meets the point I was endeavouring to cover by my Amendment. It is difficult to take these things in completely upon first hearing, but I think that what the noble Viscount proposes will effect a considerable improvement in the Bill. Therefore I have pleasure in asking leave to withdraw my Amendment.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, after subsection (5) to insert:
"(6) An article of food shall be deemed to have been rendered injurious to health if its nutritive value has been reduced or altered, or if any substance which is not a natural foodstuff is used or added in the preparation, processing or treatment thereof."
The noble Lord said: The clause which we are discussing at present is intended to be a substitute for Sections 1 and 2 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, but in making this substitution it appears to me that a very important item which was contained in Section 2 of the 1938 Act has been omitted. I do not know whether the omission is intentional or accidental. Section 2 of the 1938 Act says that:
" 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. …"
In this Bill, the reference to the abstraction of substances from food is confined only to an abstraction which will "render the food injurious to health." That is contained in subsection (1) of this clause. The reference to an abstraction from food which would "affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality" of it has been removed. If the abstraction does

305
not produce a result which is positively deleterious to health, it appears that it is permitted by the present Bill. It is on that account that I have put down this Amendment, which amplifies the meaning of the Bill by providing that
"An article of food shall have been deemed to have been rendered injurious to health if its nutritive value has been reduced or altered."
That is the substance of the provision now omitted, which was contained in the 1938 Act.
My Amendment goes on to say:
"or if any substance which is not a natural foodstuff is used or added in the preparation, processing or treatment thereof."
I think it will be agreed—at least, I hope it will be—that there is a prima facie presumption against the use of artificial products, synthetically produced substances, which are not found in nature and which have never before been used as foodstuffs. I draw attention to the fact that my Amendment does not absolutely prohibit the use of such substances, because I thought it might be difficult to persuade Her Majesty's Government to accept an Amendment as far-reaching as that, although I consider it to be right. This Amendment, read in conjunction with a later clause of this Bill, permits the use of such substances, provided that a label is attached to the article giving notice to the consumer of what has been introduced into the foodstuff that he is buying. Therefore the new subsection which I am moving, combined with the other provisions in the Bill, would have the effect not of absolutely prohibiting the use of such substances, provided that there was no definite proof that they were injurious, but at any rate of giving notice to the consumer of what had been put into the food he was buying. On those grounds I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 12, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
LORD SEMPILL: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, in this Amendment. Your Lordships know well the name of that leader in the field of medical science, Sir Edward Mellanby, who drew attention recently to this very point. He said:
"There is good reason to believe that much disease in Western countries at present is due
306
to errors of living introduced or greatly increased in modern times, and it may be that one of these errors is the ingestion of food treated by unnatural chemical substances."
Those words, coming from an authority of that nature who was at one time so closely associated with the Medical Research Council, are a strong pointer in favour of supporting the noble Lord's Amendment. As your Lordships well know, several Ministries are concerned with these matters. In regard to this question of the ingestion of food treated by these unnatural substances, if the decision were specifically and entirely in the hands of the Minister of Health, one would feel more happy that he would have the deciding voice in this matter, rather than that others concerned should have any important say. I suggest that the Minister of Health should have the absolute word in matters of this nature. I beg to support the noble Lord's Amendment.
3.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I am sorry that, in view of the great deal of trouble which the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, has obviously gone to with regard to this Bill, I can neither accept the Amendment that he is moving nor, indeed, if he will forgive me for saying so, follow his reasoning. The noble Lord says that the addition of these things, read in connection with some other part of the Bill, would not be an offence. If he had raised the question on the part of the Bill which deals with labelling, perhaps it might have been better but, as I read this Amendment, the effect of it would be that all foods containing ingredients that are not natural foods would be regarded as injurious to health. It would preclude the use of chemical substances other than natural foods. What a stodgy diet we would be faced with if bicarbonate of soda were not allowed to be used, baking powder and the rest of it! I do not know whether the noble Lord would regard things like that as unnatural foods. If the two noble Lords who spoke will forgive me for saying so, I think that their passion for purity in food, which we indeed respect, is carrying them a little too far in this Amendment which, the noble Lord proposes. Observe the words of the Amendment:
"…if its nutritive value has been reduced or altered, or if any substance which is not a natural foodstuff is used or added. …"

307
I could not advise your Lordships to accept that Amendment, and I trust that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press it on the Committee.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I gather from what the noble Viscount says that he objects to both of the provisions which I have inserted into this Amendment.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I am sorry: I cannot hear what the noble Lord is saying.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I gather that the noble Viscount objects to both of the provisions contained in this Amendment, not only to that dealing with artificial ingredients added to foodstuffs but also to the part of it dealing with the abstraction of nutritive elements from food. I am a little disappointed that he has no sympathy with the first part of this proposal which indeed was contained in the 1938 Statute; it is really going backward to omit that from this Bill and to put nothing in its place. The second part of my Amendment, I agree, introduces a new consideration which I and many others think of great importance. I am not going to press this Amendment, but what I propose to do is to put down two separate Amendments upon the Report stage dealing with these two separate points and then we shall see whether we are able to make further progress with the matter. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause I shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I should be grateful if the noble Viscount would be good enough to make one point clear before we pass this clause. I am associated in some small degree with the pharmaceutical trade, in that I am the independent chairman of a committee, and some concern has been aroused by the terms of Clause 1 (2). That subsection reads:
"No person shall add any substance to or abstract any constituent from a drug so as to affect injuriously the quality, constitution or potency of the drug, with intent that the drug shall be sold in that state."
The first question that arises is whether what is known as unofficial compound medicine is covered by the word "drug."
308
By an "unofficial compound" is meant a compound medicine, the formula for which is not prescribed by the British Pharmacopœa, or similar standard works. If the answer to that question is Yes, as I imagine will most certainly be the case, then a difficulty might arise in regard to manufacturers of such compound medicines who may decide, in the light of expert advice or modern medical research, to change the formula by reducing the proportion of one active ingredient. The result of that change would be to improve the quality and the constitution of the compound, but because the quantity of an active ingredient had been reduced it might be argued, on a narrow interpretation, that its potency or strength had been injuriously affected. At all times, of course, in accordance with the Pharmacy and Medicines Act, the manufacturer would show the correct formula on the package, and if a change were made in that formula, then of course the declaration would similarly be changed. I have had some correspondence with the noble Viscount; he was good enough to write to tell me that in his opinion, and that of his advisers, no charge could be made against a manufacturer of an unofficial compound in those circumstances. For the purposes of record I should be grateful if he would be good enough to reassure me on that point, and make it clear that this subsection is not intended to apply to those cases where the formula is clearly printed upon the package, and the medicine complies with the formula.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: The assurance that I gave in writing I will give verbally.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Defences available in proceedings under s. 3 of principal Act
2.—(1) In proceedings under section three of the principal Act for an offence consisting of the sale of food to which any substance has been added, or in the preparation of which any substance has been used as an ingredient, or from which any constituent has been abstracted, or which has been subjected to any other process or treatment, other than food thereby rendered injurious to health, it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that the operation in question was not carried out fraudulently, and either—

(a) that the operation was required for the production or preparation of the article as an article of commerce in a state fit for carriage or consumption; or

309

(b) that the article was sold having attached thereto a notice of adequate size, distinctly and legibly printed and conspicuously visible, slating explicitly the nature of the operation, or in a wrapper or container containing such a notice.

3.22 p.m.
LORD SILKEN LORD SILKEN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "either." The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 3 on the Marshalled List. With the agreement of the Committee, I should like at the same time to comment on Amendment 5, because the two go together. Clause 2 (1) deals with the question of offences against the Act, and in particular with offences in connection with what might be described as adulteration of food. It contemplates that substances will be added to food or abstracted, or that the food may be subjected to any other process or treatment. Then the subsection lays it down that it shall be an answer to any charge to show that this was not done "fraudulently." I am not sure what that means. I should be grateful if, in passing, we could have an explanation of what is meant by "not carried out fraudulently." The subsection also provides that there shall be a defence if one or other of the two conditions (a) and (b), which follow, is satisfied—
"either—
(a) that the operation was required for the production or preparation of the article as an article of commerce in a state fit for carriage or consumption; or"
that there has been a full disclosure of the contents of the addition or abstraction. My Amendment would require that both those conditions should be satisfied in order that there should be a defence.
I can well understand why, in order that the food should be suitable for commerce or carriage, it may be necessary that certain things should be, added; and if they do not harm anybody, well and good. But I think the consumer ought to be told that these things have been added. Therefore I feel that (b) should also be made a condition. I cannot see why the seller or manufacturer should have an option. It does not seem to me to make sense that it should be necessary to prove either that these things were added or abstracted in order to make them suitable for commerce or should state the composition of the article. If the first factor is necessary, why not also state the composition? It
310
seems to me so simple that I need not elaborate the point. I shall be interested to hear the reason for giving a person the alternative of doing either one or the other. I should have thought in all these cases where something is added the consumer should know what has been added. I beg to move my first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 30, leave out ("either").—(Lord Silkin.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): I rather wish that Lord Douglas's next Amendment had come before that of Lord Silkin, because I think I may prove to be rather more accommodating about what he seeks to do than about the effect of Lord Silkin's Amendment. As Clause 2 stands at the moment, it provides a defence in cases where proceedings are taken for the sale of a food or drug not of the nature, substance or quality demanded. As the noble Lord has said, the defendant must prove that he did not act fraudulently. The noble Lord has asked me what is meant by "fraudulently." He is a lawyer and I am not, but I should have thought that the definition of "fraudulently" would be used in connection with somebody having an intention to defraud. Perhaps the noble Lord will correct, me if I am wrong. In addition to proving that, he must either prove that the treatment applied was necessary to put the food or drug in a state fit for carriage or consumption, or that he had attached a label saying what had been done to the food or drug.
The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment is to make it obligatory on the defendant to prove both these things—that it was necessary for the carriage or the consumption and also that he should label it. In many cases that will prove impossible for the defendant. To take one example, if diluted spirits were sold at 60 per cent. Proof, and these were clearly labelled, it would be impossible for the defendant to prove that it was necessary that he should carry out that particular procedure in order to render his product fit for consumption, because that is not so; he would not be able to use as a defence Clause 2 of the Bill.

311
Another example would be the familiar example of self-raising flour. If the customer asked for flour, and it was offered clearly labelled as self-raising flour, the defence should apply; but it would not if this Amendment were accepted. Therefore I hope the noble Lord will appreciate that in many cases it is impossible for the defendant to prove not only that he was not acting fraudulently but was also complying with both (a) and (b), because in many cases it is not necessary, in making the product fit for consumption, that should have received the process to which it has been subjected. Therefore I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: I would rather that in all cases the manufacturer was required to state the composition—what he was adding or abstracting. I should be less concerned, subject to what the noble Lord might say, about (a) than about (b). Personally I should be satisfied if in all cases we cut out (a) altogether, and simply required the manufacturer to state the composition when he was adding something.
LORD CARRINGTON: That is the substance of Lord Douglas's next Amendment. That is what he proposes, and, as I have tried to point out, I am prepared to accept that Amendment. But I am not prepared to accept Lord Silkin's Amendment, because it will not work; it would be very bad luck on the defendant.
LORD SILKIN: In view of that intimation, if hereafter, in another Amendment, I am going to get the substance of what I want, of course I shall not insist upon my Amendment. As to "fraudulently" I was not asking the noble Lord the meaning of the word. I am quite familiar with the meaning of that word. What I did not understand was the context in which it was being used here. It does not seem to me to mean very much if you add a substance fraudulently. It is fraudulent, of course, if a purchaser does not know that it is there and buys it in the belief that it is absent; or if the purchaser buys A, thinking that it is B, that may involve something fraudulent. But this does not say so. It will become much simpler if there is a requirement that in all cases there shall be a statement setting out the
312
contents. That is my difficulty in understanding the use of these words in this context. I do not ask more than that the noble Viscount should look at these words again and see whether they cannot be made clear in this context. As I say, I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I will gladly look at these words, as the noble Lord asks.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, in subsection (1), to omit paragraph (a). The noble Lord said: My Amendment is to leave out paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Clause 2, which provides as a defence
"that the operation was required for the production or preparation of the article as an article of commerce in a state fit for carriage or consumption. …"
Those are words which are going to cause a great deal of trouble if they remain in the Bill. What does it mean by saying that the operation "was required"? Who required it? Did the manufacturer require it to suit his own convenience, or did the consumer require it for his benefit? As to "article of commerce," anything which is sold presumably is an article of commerce. That seems to open up an extraordinarily wide field.
I have great difficulty in understanding what is meant by "a state fit for carriage." It may be easier or it may be more difficult to transport a certain article in a certain condition. There, again, it appears to be a matter of convenience for the manufacturer and not something that is for the benefit of the consumer. I think that what I have said explains clearly enough the purpose of this Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 30, leave out from (" either ") to end of line 33.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
LORD CARRINGTON: I have already indicated that we are prepared to accept this Amendment. I do not think it is going to be much of a hardship to the manufacturer to have to put a label on his product. We gladly accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: The next two Amendments are really drafting Amendments to clarify the wording at this point in the Bill. Noble Lords will notice that for the sake of good English I propose to insert the words "was sold" before "in a wrapper." I further propose to substitute the word "displaying" for "containing" in the words "in a wrapper or container containing such a notice." Perhaps the wording now in the Bill was not very happily chosen. The notice might be at the bottom of the package and no one might be able to see it. That is why I propose to insert the word "displaying" instead of the word "containing." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 37, after ("or") insert ("was sold").—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 37, leave out ("containing") and insert ("displaying ").—.(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL ST. ALDWYN EARL ST. ALDWYN moved to add to the clause:
"(4) Proceedings shall not be taken under section three of the principal Act in respect of the breach of such a condition of a licence issued under Milk (Special Designations) Regulations as is referred to in section twenty-five of the 1950 Act."
The noble Lord said: I rise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hudson, whose absence abroad prevents him from moving this Amendment. I attach some importance to this Amendment because it will give the dairyman, particularly the small dairyman, certain protections which Parliament has said that he should be given. The matter is rather a technical one but I think it can most easily be explained in this way. The Ministry of Food have made orders, covering 48 per cent. of the country, making it compulsory for dairymen to sell only designated milk—that is T.T. or Pasteurized milk, or sterilised milk. If the milk sold in these specified areas is not up to the appropriate standard, the licensing authority can prosecute the retailer—in other words, a new offence has been created. During the passage of what is now the 1950 Act, repeated assurances were given by Government spokesmen of the day that several special safeguards for retailers
314
were being put into the Bill. Unfortunately, since the Bill became law it has been discovered that these safeguards, though stated in the Act, cannot be used.
I might perhaps draw the attention of the Committee to what was said in another place by Dr. Edith Summerskill on March 29, 1949 referring to that Bill. She said:
"Clause 9 is a clause which should appeal to the Committee. We make it clear that an individual who has infringed one of the provisions of the Bill will not be proceeded against until he has had a warning concerning a first breach of the conditions. He might be warned about the First breach and there might be another trivial breach—that will be seen in subsection (2). The Committee might well ask why a man can have more than one bite. He is certainly given one bite, and then there might be another trivial breach which might be overlooked. After that, if there is a breach of the conditions, proceedings could be taken."
Under the 1938 Act, a prosecution can be commenced without any warning at all. Dr. Summerskill went on:
" In subsection (3) it is made clear that it will suffice for the licence holder to prove that the infringement of a provision is not due to any neglect or default on the part of himself or his servant. I do not think any Member on reading this clause can say that any offender will be dealt with harshly."
Again, under the 1938 Act, the dairyman has no such defence. I continue reading from Dr. Summerskill's speech:
" Here there is an excellent defence provided for him. Furthermore, there will be a preliminary warning before any action is taken."
Section 26 (1) of the Act of 1950 provides that proceedings cannot be taken under that Act if any other regulations can be applied. It has been realised that selling designated milk not up to the standard of the designated milk regulations is almost always an offence under Section 3 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, which concerns selling food not of the quality demanded. Such a prosecution took place in Lancaster a few years ago. That is one of several cases. To sum up, even if the licensing authority wishes to proceed under the 1950 Act it may not do so; it must proceed under the 1938 Act, and that Act does not contain these safeguards which Parliament drew up. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 2, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl St. Aldwvn.)
LORD CARRINGTON: My noble friend's Amendment, as I understand it—I hope he will correct me if I have got him wrong—is designed to make sure that offences under Section 3 of the principal Act which are at the same time breaches of the licence should be dealt with only under Section 25 of that Act. I am not at all sure that this Bill will put milk producers in a better position than they are in already. There, I do not agree with the noble Earl. It is a serious thing for a producer in a designated area to lose his licence, because it may mean that he loses his livelihood. That is why we think that a first offence against the conditions of the licence should result only in a warning. Even so, this brings a producer one step nearer to losing his livelihood. If, on the other hand, he is proceeded against under Section 3 of the principal Act, this does not endanger his licence. If what the noble Earl has in mind is included in the Bill, it will mean that any producer who is prosecuted for a breach of the conditions of his licence can be proceeded against only in such a manner that it will endanger his licence. While there may be many cases in which, technically, there has been a breach of the conditions of licence, the offence has been more against the quality of the milk rather than an actual breach of conditions for producing designated milk. I think the producer will be better off if we leave the matter alone.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks. I am afraid I cannot entirely agree with him, but I do not wish to press this Amendment, and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, we have promised the House a statement and perhaps it will be convenient to make it now. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume. —(Viscount Wootton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

COMET AIRCRAFT DISASTER
3.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked a question earlier to-day and I said I would read a statement to be made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. I will repeat it in his own words. It is as follows:
"As the House will know, a Comet airliner of B.O.A.C., on scheduled flight from Singapore to London, crashed into the sea to the south of Elba on January 10. Of the twenty-nine passengers and crew of six, all lost their lives. The Italian authorities promptly organised search and rescue operations and fifteen bodies have been recovered, together with small portions of wreckage. On the following day, the Chairman of B.O.A.C. informed me that the Corporation had decided to suspend their normal Comet passenger services for the purpose of carrying out a detailed examination of the aircraft of the Comet operational fleet in collaboration with expert representatives of the Air Registration Board and the manufacturers. Subsequently, experts from the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, were also associated with the investigation. I fully concurred with these arrangements and arranged for the appropriate authorities in France and Canada to be informed. The French Airlines—Air France, and the Union Aeromaritime de Transport —which operate the Comet, likewise withdrew their aircraft from passenger services, but the Royal Canadian Air Force, not being engaged in public transport service, did not consider it necessary to do so. The detailed examination of four of the B.O.A.C. aircraft has already been completed but nothing has yet emerged from this examination to throw any light on the cause of the accident.
"Immediately following the accident, the Italian authorities appointed a Commission of Inquiry with which Mr. Nelson, the representative of my Chief Inspector of Accidents, was associated. The preliminary investigation established that the accident took place outside Italian territory. The Italian Government, therefore, handed over to

317
Her Majesty's Government the subsequent conduct of the investigation, and I have announced that there will be a public inquiry. The Italian Government have kindly consented to appoint two accredited representatives to assist with the investigation. My right honourable friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has made available units of the Mediterranean Fleet for the search and, we hope, the salvage of the aircraft.
"I myself attended the moving and dignified funeral and memorial services in Elba and thanked the Minister of Defence, the Italian Navy and all concerned for their invaluable assistance and co-operation. I saw at first hand the widespread sorrow of all Italians on the mainland and in Elba, and I am sure that this House will join with me in thanking them and in expressing cur deepest sympathy with the relatives and friends of those who lost their lives."
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, we on this side of the House join with the noble Earl and his right honourable colleague in another place in expressing our sympathy with all the relatives of the people who lost their lives in this sad disaster. We should like to join him also in thanking the Italian authorities for the great help which they have afforded in the search and in the other activities which have taken place since the Comet was lost. We commend the grounding of the other Comets by the B.O.A.C. We believe this was a very proper measure to take in the circumstances. I should like to ask the noble Earl whether it would not be better for all persons officially concerned with this matter to refrain from indulging in conjectures about the cause of this accident until the Committee of Inquiry has taken place, and also to refrain from making comments upon the wreckage found until this Committee has reported. That has been the custom in the past, in the case of all Governments. I think the comments that have already been made are somewhat unfortunate in the circumstances.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of the Minister's statement, may I ask him two questions? First, would he ask B.O.A.C., when the examination of all aircraft has been completed, whether they would issue a comprehensive statement covering the
318
examination of the total fleet? Secondly, would he accept a further commendation from myself, which I believe has a large measure of public opinion behind it, of the wise and courageous step which the B.O.A.C. took in suspending operations?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords for what they have said. May I correct the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, on one point? The Comets have not been grounded in the sense of taking away their certificates of air worthiness. These aircraft have only been withdrawn from passenger service, and indeed, they are on training flights at the present time. The suggestion which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, I will report to my right honourable friend and see whether a statement of that sort can be made. I appreciate that it would give a sense of confidence, if it could be done. All I can say is what I have said already, that nothing has emerged so far from this examination which would suggest, the cause of the accident. I should particularly like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for what he has said about making guesses of what might have been the cause of the accident. It is most undesirable that anyone should do that; they should wait until all the evidence has been gathered and properly sifted. It is only then that a reliable estimate can be made of what has been the cause of this deplorable event.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.49 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, before the Committee stage of the Food and Drugs Amendment Bill is resumed, there is one rather urgent point concerning tomorrow's business which I should like to mention to your Lordships. Noble Lords will see that the first item on the Order Paper for to-morrow is the consideration of the Report from the Select Committee on Standing Orders of the House. I have received representations from a number of noble Lords that they have not been given quite enough time for the consideration of this Report, and that it has come forward too soon after our return to our duties. In consideration of

319
that fact I have made certain inquiries, and I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who has agreed on behalf of noble Lords opposite that we should postpone the discussion of this item until Thursday of next week. I think that will be for the convenience of the House, and I hope that all noble Lords will be in agreement with it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, on behalf of my colleagues, I warmly concur in what the noble Marquess has said. I hope the procedure that was arranged will be followed; that is to say, that we have more or less a kind of Second Reading debate next week, and that any Amendments we should like to suggest will be put down afterwards.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The intention is that it shall be treated next week as it would have been treated to-morrow.

FOOD AND DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
3.51 p.m.
Committee stage resumed.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, after Clause 2 to insert the following new clause:
"3.—(1) No person shall sell, or offer, expose or advertise for sale for human consumption any article of food to which any substance has been added, or from which any constituent has been abstracted, or which has been subjected to any process or treatment likely to leave any residues in the food or to alter its nature or quality, unless such article has attached thereto a notice of adequate size, distinctly and legibly printed and conspicuously visible, stating clearly the ingredients contained therein or abstracted therefrom or the nature of the process or treatment to which it has been subjected.
(2) A person who contravenes this provision shall be guilty of an offence."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to ensure that all articles of food to which any substance has been added or from which any substance has been abstracted, or which has been subjected to some processing which is likely to affect its nature or quality, shall be labelled, so that the purchaser will be able to know what has been done
320
to the foodstuff he is purchasing. Provisions of this kind are part of the law in the United States, in most of the self-governing territories of the British Empire and in a number of European countries. It is well known that the constitution of articles of food has changed greatly in recent years, and although they continue to be sold under traditional names, they are, in fact, not made as they were twenty, fifty or one hundred years ago. Many ingredients which were not formerly used are inserted into them as flavouring agents, as colouring agents, as preservatives or as substitutes for natural articles of food. For example, synthetic chemicals are used as shortening agents in baking, in substitution for lard or other natural fats which were the traditional ingredient of many bakery articles. It is known that some of these articles have no nutritive value, and there are others which are of a very doubtful character indeed. Some things have been used which after many years have been found to be positively poisonous in their cumulative effect, a matter to which reference was made earlier in our proceedings.
Whatever we may think about the wisdom or unwisdom of adding such things to foodstuffs, or of abstracting part of a foodstuff and substituting something else, surely it is only reasonable that the consumer should be given the opportunity of knowing what it is that he is purchasing. This is not an interference with free competition, but is merely a means by which the public will be able to exercise a proper and discriminating choice; and it will, in fact, render competition between manufacturers equal, because then the consumer will know what he is purchasing. Nor does this seem to be a requirement which will place any undue burden upon the manufacturers of foodstuffs. As I say, it is already in operation in many countries, and has been so for considerable periods. Manufacturers in this country, when they are manufacturing foodstuffs which are to be sold abroad, already put upon the labels of the packages which they export a statement, in compliance with the law of the country to which the articles are being sent, showing what is contained in them. Therefore, there is no intrinsic difficulty in the operation of a provision of this kind, and I submit that it is essential for the information of the public that they should

321
know, especially because of the fact that so many things are sold under traditional names which are very different from the articles originally so sold.
For example, table or free running salts, which are consumed by most people in this country, I suppose, are greatly different from common salt, as we call it, which used to be the one kind of seasoning of that kind which was used. They contain other salts than sodium chloride. The public ought to be made aware of the facts when substitutions of that kind take place, instead of their being misled by the continued sale of the article under the designation which, originally described it. For those reasons, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch).
3.59 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: I rise to support with the maximum emphasis the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas. As your Lordships know, when we go into a chemist's shop to buy articles other than those requiring a doctor's prescription it is clearly set out on the label what those articles contain and surely it is more important that it, the case of foods which we consume the label should set out clearly and exactly what is in them and what process, if any, they have been through. Your Lordships debated these matters before the Christmas Recess, and there was some discussion about certain articles of food —jam and kippers. As your Lordships know, that results in an immense mass of correspondence, and I have found myself trying to fill the functions of a kind of advisory bureau, giving information on where to find "mother's jam" and kippers that are not dyed. That is a difficult thing to do and it involves a great deal of correspondence, together with equivalent time and expense. On looking into these matters, the only advice I have been able to give about kippers is not to turn to my native land north of the Border, where most kippers go through a dyeing process, but to go to the Isle of Man where, under a Statute of the Tynwald, the dyeing of kippers is absolutely prohibited, and where it is traditional to smoke them over oak wood dust.
322
I have also had a good deal of correspondence with regard to the jam situation, and equal difficulty in finding exactly where "mother's jam'' is made. I bought a nice little pot of strawberry jam. There was a picture on the label of a beautiful, girl picking fruit on some pleasant fruit farm and talking about this beautiful, fresh fruit jam. It looked a bit peculiar to me, so I had it analysed. Far from being "mother's jam"—that is to say, pure fruit and sugar—it was a pulp preserved in sulphur dioxide. I took the trouble to obtain a sample, and the jam which I hold in my hand is that jam waiting for the colouring matter and the dye to be added, prior to its being served up in the shops. Perhaps some of your Lordships are not quite so lucky as I am in having a number of small children and grandchildren—perhaps you are, and I hope you are—who have to be fed. In no circumstances would my family allow the children to eat anything but pure stuff. We do not wart any of the foods to which the chemicals referred to in some detail by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, have been added. Therefore, one looks for a straightforward product. In that way I emphasise my support for the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, that everything should be clearly labelled.
Now there are labels and labels. Keeping on the subject of "mother's jam" for a moment, may I, with your Lordships' permission, read a few words from a prominent advertisement of not very long ago. Talking about jam, they say:
"What passes for jam is usually made from fruit preserved by chemical or other means, with artificial colouring added, to give it a rich fruity look, but real jam is made in the fruit season from fresh picked fruit and fine white sugar. No preservatives in use here, or colouring matter either. That is why more and more mothers are learning to ask…"
for that particular kind of jam. The noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, takes a practical interest in these things. All our households owe him a deep debt of gratitude for the way in which he fed us in the days gone by, when, things were in extremely short supply. The housewives said, "We can always rely on His Lordship. He does the best, however difficult the circumstances." Now that the circumstances are more easy, I ask the noble Viscount to be sympathetic and understanding about this matter. If it is neces-

323
sary to have the "witches' brew" kind of jam, which I hope it is not, at least it should be clearly and specifically labelled. Then no thinking housewife, and certainly no thinking housewife with children, will ever buy it. They will always go for "mother's jam" and other straightforward food products.
LORD BURDEN: May I add a word in support of what my noble friend has said? I am sure the noble Viscount must be aware that there are some popular commodities in this country which cannot be imported into the United States, for example, in the names under which they are sold in this country, because the food code of the United States requires a more accurate description of the articles sold. If we accept this clause we may destroy the lucrative business which used to exist —I am not sure whether it exists to-day—of sending to some jam manufacturers artificial pips to put into jam of a certain character.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, for the gracious things he has been good enough to say about my past, which has filled him with hopes for my present. But I am going to resist this Amendment. Since the noble Lord has referred to the time when I was Minister of Food, let me tell him this. At that time I was so interested in the arrangements which existed in Washington regarding the labelling of foods and the protection of the public from foods which were deceptive in their nature, that I sent one or two expert people, including my late and lamented friend, Professor Sir Jack Drummond, to America in order that they might find out what it was the Americans were doing, and see whether it would be a good thing to introduce similar standards into this country. In fact, the Bill which is now before your Lordships is a direct result of conversations which have been going on in the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Health since that time.
There is nothing that the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, said about the desire to protect the public, and particularly the children of this country, that we do not all share. But it does not follow that because we have similar good intentions to those of the noble Lord the Amendment which is before us is a good one. It seemed to me, when I read it to be an
324
Amendment which was going to add a great deal of confusion. It is, of course —let us face it—the second string of Lord Douglas of Barloch's bow. We had it in the Amendment which he moved to Clause 2, and I suppose he was not quite sure whether that was "going to run" so he put it in again here. I think he might have put it under Clause 5 (3), on the subject of labelling with even more effect—though I am not encouraging him to do that on the Report stage.
What is this Amendment? Just look at it. It concerns the nature of a process or treatment to which the food has been subjected. I believe that the effect of this Amendment will be to require that every form of process, treatment, alteration or quality would have to be indicated on a label. The Amendment is couched in such wide terms that I can imagine that the courts would be very busy indeed if we were to pass it. We are all actuated by precisely the same motives: we want to get a good Bill. Let us make it, so far as we can, a simple Bill and one that people will want to obey—I have always regarded that as being the essence of good law. Do not let us create so much confusion that people will be exposed to temptation. I have done my best throughout this discussion to agree with Lord Douglas of Barloch because I agree so much with the motives that are actuating him; but I really cannot agree to add this complicated clause to the Bill, and I hope that he will find himself able to withdrawn the Amendment.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: In view of the fact that the noble Viscount is so sympathetic towards the principle of this Amendment on what is, as he said, a complex matter, may I suggest that he should devote all the great resources of his Department and his own intellectual power towards suggesting something more simple? We are all of one mind; could not something be thought out which would make for greater simplicity?
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I can answer now with the greatest simplicity: I think the clause is unnecessary.
LORD SILKIN: May I say one further word on this subject? None of us here is an expert draftsman, and it is easy to pick holes in any Amendment put forward dealing, admittedly, with a com-

325
plicated subject. The noble Viscount has put his finger on one or two weak points in this Amendment; but I ask, with great respect, whether he has dealt with the principle of the Amendment at all. What is wrong with the idea that a person who adds substances or abstracts them or alters the nature of food should let the public know that he is doing so? That is all the Amendment seeks to achieve. Let the public know what is being done. These things may or may not be injurious. If they are not, well and good; but the public ought to know that something is being done to their food. Lord Sempill referred to jam which was not "mother's jam." He did not establish the fact that it was harmful. I do not know whether it would be harmful or not; but at any rate we should like to know what we are eating, and I should be glad if the noble Viscount would direct his criticism to the principle of what the Amendment seeks to achieve. It seems to me to be something which we all desire: to let the public know what they are eating.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I have no objection. My point is simply that this clause is unnecessary, since the Bill gives everything that is necessary to achieve the desired end. If a noble Lord comes along with an Amendment to put a complicated clause in the Bill, I am not obliged to accept it because I think his, motives are right. What sort of Bill would it be if we did that? Everything which the noble Lord desires is covered in Clause 5 of the Bill, and that is why I asked the noble Lord whether he would be good enough to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: If I may pursue this matter a little further, may I say that this Amendment makes it obligatory on person who adds or abstracts substances to make the fact known? Clause 5 will enable the Ministry to make regulations. If one could get an assurance that they were going to make regulations similar to those mentioned, Lord Douglas of Barloch would, I am sure, be prepared to consider that as an important factor in dealing with this Amendment. We have no such assurance as yet. I do not care whether it is done in this clause or in Clause 5 so long as we know that the Government do, in fact, intend to make regulations on those lines.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: That is the whole intention of tile Bill. I do not give any assurance that the Minister will make regulations in the precise language which the noble Lord desires. But for the protection of the public this will most certainly be done. Way have we brought: in this Bill, except for that reason? We intend under Clause 5 that the Minister should have power to, make regulations, and I take it that that would not have been put in if; there had not been such an intention. I think that this proposed clause is completely unnecessary, and that is why I am bound to resist it. I hope that in the process of resisting it I am not being unsympathetic to the motive actuating noble Lords.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I am always willing to learn from the noble Viscount or from anybody else. I gather that the point which the noble Viscount made originally was that it was difficult to explain by a label the processing or treatment to which some articles of food have been subjected. Well, it may be difficult, but it may also be desirable. I notice, for example, that foodstuffs coming from the United States and Canada bear labels saying that they have been processed or treated with, say, sulphur dioxide. It seems to be possible in those countries to explain these things on a label without any great difficulty, and I am not prepared to concede that there is a great difficulty in this country. Then I understood that the noble Viscount took as an alternative ground of objection to this clause that the point was already covered in Clause 5. If I had thought that that was so I should not have put down this Amendment at all. Clause 5 is an optional clause; it gives the Minister certain powers to make regulations. If it was really the intention of the Government that such regulations should be made to apply to foodstuffs generally, I am a little surprised that they did not say so. Nevertheless, I am not going to press this Amendment. In the meantime I am quite willing to consider whether there is not some other way of achieving the object I have in view and to which I understand the noble Viscount is entirely sympathetic. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3:
Regulations as to composition of food, etc.
3.—(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 any 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;
(2) Regulations made under this section may apply to cream, and to any food containing milk; but except as aforesaid such regulations shall not apply to milk.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that no such regulation shall authorise the sale of any article which is without food value, or the description of an article of food in terms which are likely to conceal its true nature and composition."
The noble Lord said: There are now two Amendments in my name at this point in the Bill, and I will explain how that has happened. The noble Viscount was good enough to write to me during the Recess and say that he had considered Amendment No. 8 (which I am about to move), but that he did not feel able to accept it. He told me, however, that he would be prepared to accept an Amendment in the form of Amendment No. 8A, which I subsequently placed on the Order paper.
The point, as I understood it, which the noble Viscount made with regard to Amendment No. 8, was that regulations made under Clause 3 do not authorise the sale of articles. That may, in a sense, be technically correct. Of course, the manufacturers make articles for sale because they hope to be able to sell them, and not because the Ministry have made some regulations. Nevertheless, regulations made by the Minister are taken by the general public to be an authorisation for something to be done in accordance with them. I did not think that the word "authorise" was altogether inappropriate. I will give a simple example of what I want to achieve. Let us take once more the case of jam. There
328
are still in existence, I believe, regulations made by the Ministry of Food which have prescribed certain standards for jam, and those standards are commonly placed by jam manufacturers upon the labels of the jars or tins in which the jam is sold. I forget for the moment what all these various catch-phrases are. There is "full fruit standard," "fresh fruit standard and some other designations which have been approved by the Ministry of Food. If someone has sufficient curiosity, no doubt he can turn up the Statutory Order, and he will then find that in most of these cases it is not necessary that all the fruit content of the jam should be the particular fruit by which it is designated on the label. In fact, in a great many cases other fruits are used in order to eke out the more expensive one, and various other substances, such as pectin, can be used. These labels which are being affixed to articles seem to me to fall not very far short of the description which I have used in this Amendment, namely, authorise the sale of
" an article of food in terms which are likely to conceal its true nature and composition."
Therefore, I am going to move this Amendment in order to give the noble Viscount an opportunity of making it clearer, to me at any rate, what is his fundamental objection to this particular Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 32, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
4.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I am sorry that your Lordships should be kept so long. I have already told the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, precisely the reasons why I cannot accept this Amendment. I have given him another Amendment which the Parliamentary draftsman assures me achieves precisely the same results, and he is subsequently going to move it. I do not think I need detain your Lordships by making another speech on the matter.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: If the noble Viscount assures me that the second Amendment on this matter has precisely the same object, of course I am delighted to withdraw the first Amendment.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I have already assured the noble Lord by correspondence.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I am sorry that I did not understand before that that was so. If that is so, as I say, I shall be happy to withdraw this Amendment and to move the next. I now beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I beg leave formally to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 32, 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.")—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I have great pleasure in accepting the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE had given notice of an Amendment in subsection (2), to omit "but except as aforesaid such regulations shall not apply to milk." The noble Viscount said: I put down Amendment No. 9 in order to be quite sure that I should not be blocked by the terms of this Bill from moving my later and much more important Amendment regarding the quality of milk. I understand that Amendment No. 9 is too sweeping and widespread in character, and therefore I do not propose to move it.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Labelling, etc., of food and drugs
(2) It is hereby declared that for the purposes of the said section six, a label or advertisement which is calculated to mislead as to the nutritional or dietary value of any fond is calculated to mislead as to the nature, substance or quality of the food.
4.27 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON,LORD CARRINGTON, moved, in subsection (2) to leave out "nature, substance or." The noble Lord said: The purpose of subsection (2) of Clause 5 is to make misleading nutritional and
330
dietary claims subject to the provisions of Section 6 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. As this section of the 1938 Act mentioned the three terms—nature, substance or quality—I am proposing to move that the words, "nature, substance or" be left out here. These three words were put into the Defence (Sale of Food) Regular ions, 1943, and were subsequently moved into the Food and Drugs Amendment Bill. It is, however, very much better, for the purpose of this subsection, to mention only one of the three terms: otherwise the prosecution would have to decide in each case which of these three terms would be appropriate to the particular nutritional or dietary claim. I am told that, with the revised wording, a good many disputes in court will be avoided. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 15, leave out ("nature, substance or ").—(Lord Carrington.)
LORD SILKIN: It seems to me that although this Amendment produces simplicity, it also narrows the effect of the clause. These are three different types of offence that a person can commit. He can mislead the public as to the nature; he can mislead the public as to its substance he can mislead the public as to its quality. They are quite different, and what this Amendment appears to me to be seeking to do is, to say, "It is all right if you mislead the public about the nature of the thing; it is all right if you mislead them as to its substance. It is only if you mislead as to quality that an offence is committed." Does the noble Lord really mean that? These are words which are perfectly well understood today. They have had currency for a long time in the Food and Drugs Act; they are perfectly well known. Why not leave them alone and widen the scope of the action that can be taken where a person is seeking to mislead the public?
LORD CARRINGTON: I must say that, when I was first presented with this Amendment, I felt exactly the same about that as does the noble Lord. I thought that that was the effect. But I do not think that that is quite the effect of it. If the noble Lord will read it again, he will see that, in effect, it becomes a sort of definition. What we are trying to do is to bring misleading descriptions of nutritional or dietary value and quality, under the Act

331
of 1938, so that, if my Amendment is accepted, subsection (2) will now read:
"It is hereby declared that for the purposes of the said section six, a label or advertisement which is calculated to mislead as to the nutritional or dietary value of any food is calculated to mislead as to the quality of the food."
I think the noble Lord will find that that does not narrow the effect; it merely defines that any misleading nutritional or dietary value label is, in effect, misleading in quality.
LORD SILKIN: I do not wish to detain the Committee on a legalistic point. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would reconsider his first thoughts on the subject, and ask the Parliamentary draftsmen to look at the matter again. If, in the light of what I have said, they are satisfied that what the noble Lord says is true, I will accept it.
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes, of course I will do that. I had the same first thoughts as the noble Lord, but having spoken to the Parliamentary draftsmen, I hart some more thoughts.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Regulations as to food hygiene
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection, regulations made by the Ministers may make provision—
4.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT LONG VISCOUNT LONG moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (f) to insert:
"(g) for ensuring that meat when carried in open or in closed vehicles is properly covered; "
The noble Viscount said: I have put down this Amendment in order to ensure that meat which is now carried in closed vehicles is protected by meatcloth in the same way as, under the 1924 Public Health (Meat) Regulations, meat carried in open vehicles had to be adequately protected by meatcloth. To-day, meat carried in these enclosed vehicles is just as liable to be trampled on by the workers. Moreover, when the doors are opened, unless the meat is adequately protected, it is apt to become contaminated. I understand that up to 1939 the meat carried in unprotected vehicles was very much better handled, and was in
332
every way of a better standard, but in 1939 this regulation was more or less dropped. The sole object of my Amendment is to ensure that, whether the vehicle is open or enclosed, meatcloth should be used. I believe it to be a fact that all imported meat is wrapped in meatcloth and that before that meat is despatched from Smithfield it has put upon it new meatcloth. I understand, further, that in America they take tremendous trouble to protect their meat, both when it is in uncovered and when it is in covered vehicles. For that reason, I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to accept my Amendment, which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 34, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Viscount Long.)
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I wonder whether the noble Viscount will be prepared to accept an assurance that his point is completely covered by the powers that will exist when this Bill becomes an Act. The Ministers have power to make regulations in these matters. Clause 6 (1) covers
"transport, storage, packaging, exposure for sale, service or delivery of food intended for sale or sold for human consumption. …"
I am advised that, in the opinion of the Parliamentary draftsman, all that the noble Viscount requires is already provided for in this Bill. I therefore ask him, if he is satisfied with my assurance on that point, whether he will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT LONG: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his reply. The only reason I mentioned this matter was that, in spite of the 1924 regulation, meat in uncovered vehicles was not being protected. Of course, I will withdraw my Amendment if I can obtain an assurance that the position which arose in 1939 will not be repeated under this particular clause, and that it will be made perfectly clear that meat conveyed in covered vehicles will have to be protected. If I can have that assurance from the noble Viscount, I shall be delighted to withdraw my Amendment.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: As at present advised, I can give the noble Viscount that assurance. If, subsequently, I find that I have gone a little too far in the matter, I will say so on the Report stage.

333
I will give the noble Viscount the opportunity of moving an Amendment then which I hope I shall be able to accept.
VISCOUNT LONG: On that assurance from the noble Viscount, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON moved, in subsection (3), to leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
"(a) impose 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, responsibility for compliance with those requirements:"
The noble Lord said: The paragraph which I am asking the Committee to leave out provides that regulations dealing with hygiene may specify the persons who will be guilty in the case of infringements, and that such persons may include the occupiers of premises, and, if the regulations are about structural matters, the owners. On second thoughts, it seemed better and more proper not to leave the scope of criminal liability to be defined in regulations. Accordingly the object of Amendment is to make it clear that the owners can be made responsible only where they either let the premises for the purpose of food business or permit them to be used for such a business, after the local authority has given notice to the owners. I beg to move.
Amendment moved.—
Page 6, line 46, leave out paragraph (a) and insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 6, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My noble friend Lord Woolton has given a valuable assurance to my noble friend Lord Long in relation to meat. I wonder whether he is in a position to give me a similar assurance in regard to fruit exposed on street barrows, a matter to which I drew attention on the Second Reading of this Bill? As a considerable producer on a commercial scale of apples, I have frequently been troubled by the fact that apples have been exposed at various street corners of London without adequate protection. I have more than once
334
seen people coughing over these harrows, and possibly conveying T.B. or other germs to the purchasing public. I only want to know whether the words, at the top of page 6, "without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection," will cover my particular trouble in regard to apples sold from street barrows in London.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I can give the noble Viscount an assurance that they are so covered. We are delighted that he has raised the point.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Amendment of s. 14 of principal Act
7.—(1) Any application for the registration of premises under section fourteen of the principal Act (which provides for the registration of premises used for or in connection with the manufacture and sale of ice-cream, sausages and certain preserved foods) shall specify the purpose or purposes described in subsection (1) of that section which registration is applied for, and all rooms or accommodation in the premises proposed to be used for such purposes; and the premises to be registered under that section in pursuance of such an application shall not include any room, or accommodation not specified in the application.
(3) For subsection (3) of the said section fourteen there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
"(3) If in the case of any premises in respect of which an application for registration is made under this section, or which are registered under this section, it appears to the local authority—
(b) that the premises or any part of the premises are otherwise unsuitable for use for the purpose or purposes specified in the application, or for which they are used, as the case may be.
the authority shall serve on the said applicant or occupier a notice stating the place and time, not being less than fourteen clays after the date of the service of the notice, at which they propose to take the matter into consideration and informing him that he may attend before them, with any witnesses whom he desires to call, at the place and time mentioned to show cause why the authority should not, for reasons specified in the notice, refuse the application or, as the case may be, cancel the registration of the premises."
4.39 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved, in subsection (1), to omit all words after "applied for." The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Furness, who is abroad. I understand

335
that my noble friend's purpose in tabling this Amendment is to obtain some clarification as to the position of premises which will be partially used in connection with the preparation, manufacture and sale of ice cream, sausages and certain preserved foods. As at present drafted, the clause specifies that all the rooms which are to be used must be set out in detail at the time of application for registration, and that such registration must not include any room or accommodation not specified in the application. It seems a little difficult when what I term partial use of rooms is occasionally made for preparation: it may be that one room or part of a room is used. If the Minister would be good enough to clear up that point, I am sure that it would satisfy my noble friend's doubt.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 37.—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
LORD BURDEN: I hope that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill will not accept this Amendment. As I read it, if it were accepted it would be possible, for example, for a street hawker of ice cream, so long as he did not sell the ice cream from a particular room, to store the ice cream underneath a bed, or even in the toilet. That would, I think, be the effect of accepting the Amendment. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Viscount will not accept it.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I am not asking him to accept it.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I am very glad to have support from Lord Burden. I cannot accept this Amendment for the quite obvious reason that if, for hygienic reasons, we are going to say that certain premises may be used for purposes of manufacture, the fact that there are some other rooms in the place does not mean that they are hygienically suitable. That is the reason for the clause. I think the omission which it has been suggested we should make would greatly weaken the Bill, and I am fortified in this by the fact that the Manufactured Meat Products Working Party, which has been going into the matter, are in favour of the Bill as it now stands. I hope that, as I have clarified the position as the noble Lord asked me to do, he will not think it necessary to press this Amendment.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I will convey to my noble friend who is now abroad the forcible and convincing reasons which have been given by the Minister for refusing to accept this Amendment. I now beg to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I beg to move the next Amendment. I think it is rather more powerful than the last, because the Bill, as at present drawn, seems to give local authorities very wide powers for refusing registration. It refers to premises which are "otherwise unsuitable for use for the purpose…" What we want to avoid is any possibility of some local authority using the powers contained in this Bill for purposes for which Parliament never intended they should be used—for instance, for purposes relating to a residential area, or for refusing to allow a particular sort of business in a particular sort of area. If that is to be done, I submit that it should be done under other Statutes, and not under this one. Therefore we propose to insert the word "hygienically," which will make it clear that refusal of registration should be in connection with the purposes of this Bill and not with the purposes of any other measure. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 9, after (" otherwise ") insert (" hygienically ").—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
LORD BURDEN: Notwithstanding what the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, proposes to do in this matter, I beg him not to accept this Amendment. As one who has had some experience as a member of a local authority of applications for licences, it seems to me that to insert this word would be adding a very undesirable complication in the work of the local authorities responsible for the licensing and of their officers. An officer would have to prove to the satisfaction of all concerned that the premises in respect of which an application was made were not hygienic. First of all, what is to be the definition of "hygienic"? Moreover, surely there are a number of other considerations in connection with the licensing of premises for the sale of foodstuffs that have to be taken into consideration, in addition to hygienic factors. I hope that, in the circumstances, the dulcet voice of the noble

337
Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, will not induce the noble Viscount to accept this Amendment.
LORD CARRINGTON: I do not know about the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, but the noble Lord, Lord Burden, does not convince me about this. It seems to me that if he has been acting under the sort of rules of which he has been telling us, he has been doing it quite illegally. But as the Bill stands, I do not think that Lord Balfour of Inchrye need be frightened of the sort of examples which he gave us. In fact, the purposes which the local authority could take into account in refusing or cancelling registration trust be related to the general purposes of the Food and Drugs Act—that is the protection of public health. They could not, for example, take into account any questions of town planning.
LORD BURDEN: I accept that absolutely. I was not thinking of town planning. But hygiene is not the only factor, so far as public health is concerned.
LORD CARRINGTON: I am afraid that I misunderstood the noble Lord. I thought that he had in mind questions relating to town planning. That was what Lord Balfour of Inchrye seemed to be frightened of. Though I agree that that would be very undesirable. I think that it would be possible to do it under the Bill as it stands. If the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, feels very strongly about this Amendment, we are prepared to consider further the question of putting something of the sort in the Bill.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that offer. I am not wedded to the word "hygienically." If the Minister will be so good as to consider the matter further, I will not press the Amendment now, view of the undertaking which has been given, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to. Clause 8 agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN EARL ST. ALDWYN moved, after Clause 8 to insert the following new clause:
"9.—(1) Subsection (1) of section twenty- nine of the 1950 Act shall be amended in the following respects, namely after the words
338
"purporting to be cream or artificial cream" there shall be inserted the words "or imitation cream"; and at the end of paragraph (b there shall be inserted the word "or" and following new paragraph—
"(c) where the substance is imitation cream, the word "cream" is immediately preceded by the word "imitation".
(2) Subsection (1) of section thirty-four of the 1950 Act shall he amended by inserting after The definition of "Food and Drugs Authority" the following, definition: Imitation Cream' means an article of food which, though not cream or reconstituted cream, resmbles cream in appearance and is produced by emulsifying one or more edible oils or fats with water and other substances to give a stable wholesome product." "
The noble Earl said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hudson. I feel that the Amendment is self-explanatory, and I do not intend to weary your Lordships by saying a great deal about it, except to emphasise one or two points. First, with regard to cream. We have cream and we have artificial cream. Under this Bill It is proposed that we should have cream and reconstituted cream. At present. the public can be sold other matters which resemble cream but which are not, in fact, made or reconstituted from cream or any form of milk. That seems to me unfair, both on the producer of the genuine article and on the public. When members of the public think they are buying strawberries and cream, but are, in fact, buying strawberries with a no doubt wholesome but very different matter from the one which they think they are getting—namely, real cream—they are being unfairly treated. I do not think I need say anything further about. this Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8, insert the said new clause.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I have great pleasure in accepting this Amendment, and I am obliged to the noble Earl for the trouble to which Ito has gone. I am sure he will be gratified to know that Parliamentary counsel accept the language which has been put forward. I think this Amendment is a considerable improvement to the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Provisions relating to milk]:
LORD CARRINGTON: With the permission of the Committee, I will explain the next four Amendments together, because they serve the same purpose. They remove the words "or places" from association with "premises," which, together with the proposed Amendment which I shall move later to Clause 28, will clarify the definition of dairy farms and places used temporarily as dairy farms—for example, agricultural shows and exhibitions. By inserting the word "occupiers," where appropriate, we intend to make it possible to register as a dairy farmer the person or organisation responsible for the show or exhibition and responsible, therefore, for the temporary use of the premises for the production of milk for human consumption. As the clause is at present drafted, it might be necessary to register each individual exhibitor who had cows in milk at an agricultural show. The words inserted at the end of line 9 ensure that the registration of premises used temporarily as dairy farms, and of their occupiers, and the enforcement of the appropriate regulations, shall be the duty of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 4, leave out from ("provision") to ("used") in line 5 and insert—
("(a) for the registration of premises"). —(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARRINGTON: I beg to move the next Amendment, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 6, leave out from ("of ") to ("for") and insert—
(" the occupiers of such premises; (b)").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARRINGTON: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 7, leave out from ("premises") to end of line 7 and insert ("and occupiers").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARRINGTON: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 9, at end insert ("and in relation to regulations made by virtue of this subsection with respect to premises used as dairy farms, section seven of the said Act (which relates to the enforcement of Milk and Dairies regulations) shall have effect as if any reference therein to persons carrying on or proposing to carry on the trade of a dairy farmer included a reference to the occupiers of the premises:").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
4.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE moved, after Clause 10 to insert the following new clause:
Butter fat content in milk
".Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2) of section three of this Act. all milk sold for public consumption whether by a cowkeeper or trade distributor must contain at least three per cent. of butter fat and all vendors of the same containing a lower percentage shall be deemed to commit an offence under this Act or any previous legislation applicable thereto."
The noble Viscount said: I want to ask the kindly consideration of the Committee if I put the case for this Amendment very briefly. I am suffering a temporary disablement which prevents my indulging in continuous mental effort and results in occasional mental blackouts. I am not really allowed for the time being to address the House at all, but I feel so strongly on this subject that I should at least like to introduce the matter in the hope that others will discuss it at sufficient length.
The purport of this Amendment is that
" all milk sold for public consumption whether by a cowkeeper or trade distributor must contain at least three per cent. of butter fat and all vendors of the same containing a lower percentage shall be deemed to commit an offence under this Act or any previous legislation applicable thereto."
I want to say at the outset that, so far as I can ascertain, no civilised country is so far behind as is this country—when I say "this country," I mean England and Wales—in being satisfied that milk is whole milk. The present policy as regards the quality purveyed to the public in England and Wales is fair neither to the public nor to those dairy farmers who nowadays try to produce milk of high quality—and this applies to over three-quarters of them. This relates especially

341
in regard to the percentage of butter-fat in the milk. When I stress the percentage of butter fat in the milk, I do not want at all to ignore the necessity of the adequacy of other solids in milk—sugar, and particularly casein, which, of course, is the protein content of milk—which is very important nowadays in order to secure a proper balance in the dietary of the nation.
As I say, what is called the legal presumptive minimum is to be 3 per cent., but even this low minimum—and it is low compared to the requirements in other civilised countries—can be reduced by what is called "an appeal to the cow." That provision, I understand, does not appear specifically in any of the Food and Drugs Acts, but it does appear in a Schedule to the Act of 1938 and, I think, to the previous; Act. At any rate, it has been in operation for many years past. We in this country sell our milk by volume or, if you like, by gallonage. In New Zealand and Australia, in Denmark and Holland, it is sold by its butter-fat content. I understand that this is also the case in Western Germany, the United States of America. Canada, Norway and Sweden. In some of those countries, I have to admit, a process of standardisation is in operation, but not in Australasia. Under that process of standardisation there is in Denmark, if I remember aright a minimum of 3·5 per cent. butter-fat, and in Holland a minimum of 2 ·5 per cent. butter-fat, but on the footing and the clear understanding that the quality of the milk is maintained and the surplus above this standardised limit is to be turned into butter, so that the public benefit in one way or another. I have also to admit, because I want to be perfectly frank, that in countries like New Zealand and Australia the farmers who, unlike most of ours, are organised in co-operative societies, get the double benefit, because as a rule not only are they paid for the butter-fat but the by-products, the separated milk or, in the case of cheese-making, the whey, return to them for the feeding of their pigs and other livestock.
I am fortified in submitting this Amendment to your Lordships by the emphatic opinion of three organisations whose opinion I think is worthy of consideration—the County Councils Association, who are emphatic in asking me to press this Amendment, the Association
342
of Municipal Corporations and the Milk Marketing Board, through the mouth of their chief chemist. Dr. A. L. Proven. May I take the evidence of the Association of Municipal Corporations first? In a communication addressed last month to the Ministers of Agriculture and Food, they said:
"The quality of milk produced in England is substantially lower than that of Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Health Committee of the Association of Municipal Corporations urges that Food and Drug authorities should be allowed to prosecute farmers who, after warning, fail to bring Cleft milk up to a required standard. It also suggests that tie price paid to farmers for milk should be based on quality. While the farmer is paid a premium upon gallonage produced, irrespective of quality, the quantity will remain the only fact for consideration by some farmers…It must he borne in mind that what the public pay for is an article of food and it should have a proper food value. If the milk sold by a farmer is not of a certain minimum food value, then it should not be sold for consumption by the public. The Committee says that only Grade A tuberculin-tested milk is sold in Northern Ireland, and in Scotland the Milk Marketing Board have aways insisted that milk should contain at least 3.4 per cent, of butterfat. "
What I am urging on your Lordships' to-day is that in this country, after an "appeal to the cow," a large proportion of the milk that the public receive has a butter fat content of considerably less than 3 per cent. They go on to say:
" In England the standard was 3 per cent., and this could be set at a very much higher level without imposing any great economic burden upon the farmer."
I understand that the attitude of the Executive of the National Farmers' Union, headed by my good friend Sir James Turner, of whom I have a high opinion, is that the quality of milk is an important consideratton and that it is the duty of all concerned to improve that quality. However, they represent efficient farmers, mediocre farmers and inefficient: farmers; and as a great trade union understand that they will not commit themselves, at any rate at the moment, to approving this particular provision.
I should now like to refer to a report of a statement made by the chief chemist to the Milk Marketing Board only last week before the Sunderland and South Shields Farmers. Discussion Groups. The report states that he said that
" between 30 and 40 per dent. of the milk sent to the Board's creamery, at Langley Bridge, in April would be below the presumptive legal standard."
The report goes on:
"Urging the production of better milk, he said that herds should be fed properly from birth. It was also necessary to improve the quality of the feeding-stuffs, such as hay, which were homegrown. Of sub-standard milk, Dr. Provan declared: 'I do wish we could have a really forthright attack on the compositional problem.' "
I now wish to refer to a communication from the County Councils Association, in which they say:
"…this Association, which represents Food and Drugs authorities, is in full support of your Amendment. We are in favour of it for two reasons: (1) Public health grounds, as being the best way of raising the standard of milk. (2) To enable Food and Drugs authorities to fulfil their functions under Section 3 of the principal Act of enforcing the prohibition against the sale of milk not of the nature, substance or quality demanded."
The position is complicated a little by the report of the Working Party which reported in 1950. Although strongly emphasising the importance of quality milk, they would not commit themselves to the acceptance of the 3 per cent. butter-milk minimum without any "appeal to the cow."
I may say, quite frankly, that I have a shrewd suspicion that my noble friends sitting below me, representing the Government, are not going to accept this Amendment. If that is so, I imagine that their objection to it is based upon the danger of reducing the quantity of milk available to the consuming public; that if we rule out what I may call the substandard milk, there may not be sufficient to provide the public with all the milk they can justly claim. In this connection, I am bound to refer straight away to what I might call the breed problem. Up to about thirty-five or forty years ago the Shorthorns provided more of the milk required by this country than any other breed. With the great spread now in this country of the British Friesian breed, today they proudly claim that they are by far the largest providers of milk. The British Friesians provide, I imagine, about 40 per cent. of the whole of the milk of the country, far exceeding the production of any other breed.
I speak with some hesitation about the Friesians, because I frankly confess that there is no breed that has improved the quality of its milk more markedly. During the last ten or fifteen years they have won more often than any other breed
344
what is known as the Bledisloe Trophy, which I provided nearly forty years ago to be competed for at the Annual Dairy Show, and it is becoming increasingly difficult for any other breed to compete successfully against them. But all those animals, what I may call the pick of the Friesian breed, to-day provide high quality milk—in the case of some of them, indeed, it has a butter-fat content of 4 per cent. There is, however, a considerable tail of Friesian breeders who still produce what we used to call in the old days "blue milk "—that is, milk lacking an adequate amount of butter-fat. That is largely responsible for the prevalence of low-quality milk to-day.
My comment upon the Working Party's ultimate decision is that, although they emphasise the enormous importance in the interests of the consuming public of high-quality milk, they do not give any definite suggestion as to how that high quality is to be generally attained. I speak with special emphasis to my noble friend Lord Carrington, because I noticed with great rejoicing that only last week, in a powerful speech which he made, I think at Shrewsbury, he laid emphasis upon the importance, above everything else, of the maintenance by farmers of high quality in all their produce. I am sure that, among other most important products, he kept in mind milk—what we used to call during the war, the A.1 priority food of the country, a term inspired by no less a person than the Minister of Food at that time, Lord Woolton. It is the A1 priority food and, of course, affects particularly the health and well-being of the children of the country.
Milk, particularly winter milk, is by no means a cheap article to-day. I will not make any suggestions as to whether the producers of milk—I happen to be one myself—are being well or badly paid for their milk. But I am certain that the retailers of winter milk must be selling it at a price which it must be a little difficult for some of the poorer consumers of this country to pay; and if the milk is not of sufficiently high quality, then the price may be deemed to be excessive. That is the case I wish to put to-day. I hesitate to say this, for one reason which may rather amuse your Lordships. When I was Governor General of New Zealand, a short time before I left in 1935 (bear in

345
mind that three-quarters of the dairy cattle of the Northern Island of New Zealand are Jerseys) no less a person than the late Sir Truby King, the greatest authority who has ever existed upon the proper feeding of young children and pregnant mothers, descended upon me at Government House and said, "Your Excellency, I have come to make a great complaint." I said, "What is the matter Sir Truby?" He said, "Your Jersey cows are poisoning my babies." I asked, "Well, what is the matter? What about it?" He said, "Those large butter-fat globules cannot be properly assimilated by infantile stomachs." That comment rather troubled me. I told him, "I am not quite sure that it is part of my functions as His Majesty's representative to cure this alleged defect."
A prominent member of the United Dairies, who has given some interesting views on this subject, drew my attention to the fact that in Canada and the United States higher fat tested milk, such as 3·5 per cent., and even 4 per cent., is not infrequently found; but recently the craze for slimming has produced a so-called "slim milk," which is milk reduced to a 2 per cent. content of butterfat. Further, in the United States a small but significant quantity of skimmed milk is now being sold on the liquid market to the younger generation who are anxious to maintain willowy figures. I mention these facts only because there are obviously extreme views in different parts of the world as to what is the most acceptable milk to certain sections of the population.
I will not trouble the Committee with anything more to-day, but if an agitation does start about so-called dear food —though I sincerely hope that nothing of the sort will happen—and the increased cost of living, I am afraid that milk may be made a target of attack. If so, I should like to feel that farmers are doing all in their power to provide milk of the quality required, and that we shall be able to defend the attack on the footing that farmers are being induced by the Ministry of Food to improve their methods, to keep high yielding cattle producing high quality milk with an adequate amount not merely of butterfat but of solids other than butterfat which are so important to the health of the nation. Whether this Amendment
346
is accepted or not. I earnestly hope that those who represent the Government will give an assurance that, if such a provision as I suggest cannot be accepted today, they will do all in their power to justify it in the not distant future. In that way the farmers who are aiming at high quality milk will feel their efforts justified, whilst the public will have no reason to complain that high-priced milk of low qualify is being supplied to them, particularly in the large centres of population. I hope that my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh will have something to say on this subject, because I happen to know that the Council of the Royal Borough of Kensington, on which he sits, have gone into this problem. They have pointed out that during the last thirty years or more there has been a steady deterioration in the quality of milk as purveyed in that borough, both in regard to butter-fat and in regard to solids other than butter-fat. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 10, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Bledisloe.)
5.18 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: I feel that something ought to be said from these Benches, and first I should like to tell the noble Viscount who has just spoken that on these matters the whale Committee listens to him with the greatest respect; and we are all deeply indebted to him for having come here to move this Amendment and to speak to us, in spite of the physical handicaps to which he referred and which we all hope w ill not: be of lasting effect. I and many of my colleagues have given careful consideration to this question. I regard it as one of the most important questions in the Bill. Of course, we are always desirous of securing for the consuming public the maximum amount of butter-fat and solids in milk, and to secure for them the best possible quality in their milk. In that we are at one. The question we have to consider is whether or not this Amendment would secure that object. With some diffidence, speaking in the presence of so high an authority as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, I beg to express some doubts—I will put it no higher than that. I am doubtful whether the Amendment would have that

347
result. I gathered that the noble Viscount was not proposing to eliminate the "appeal to the cow."
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I want to make it quite clear that it is the "appeal to the cow" which, above all things, I want to resist. I want to see a better-behaved cow, one that will produce high-quality milk—not to put a premium on low quality milk.
LORD SILKIN: Of course, that does make more sense of the Amendment, if I may say so. Obviously, if the "appeal to the cow" had been preserved, it would have been impossible to ensure a minimum of 3 per cent. butter-fat. If you do not have the "appeal to the cow," a considerable amount of milk at present available in this country will no longer be capable of being used; and that, no doubt, will create a temporary shortage. It is an illustrative question. I am not in a position to judge how much milk will, so to speak, be going out of use and what will happen to that milk. I imagine there will be other uses for it—some of it will undoubtedly be used for pig food, in which I personally have an interest. Perhaps from that point of view it may be an advantage to pig producers.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I think the noble Lord must admit that the "appeal to the cow" is definitely putting a premium, and a continuing premium, upon the production of low-quality milk.
LORD SILKIN: I was not advocating the continuance of the "appeal to the cow." but merely trying to understand the noble Viscount's case. I now understand that if the Amendment is accepted, there will be a quantity of milk—I do not know how much, but it will be a considerable quantity—which will be available but which will be incapable of being sold as milk. Side by side with that, there will be a temporary shortage. That may he good or bad. If it induces milk producers immediately to improve the quality of their milk, it may be a good thing; but I imagine that it is not easy to improve the quality of milk suddenly. It involves questions of breeding, housing, feeding, and management; and such things cannot be improved in one year or two years. It would take a good many years—again I hesitate to say this in the
348
presence of the noble Viscount, but I speak with some slight knowledge—since many of the things which go to the making of good milk cannot be improved rapidly. You cannot solve breeding and housing problems immediately; and a good deal of milk being produced in this country to-day is admittedly produced under not altogether satisfactory conditions. These conditions will take a good time to remedy; they cannot be remedied overnight. Therefore, if this Amendment is accepted it looks as if we shall be faced for some time to come with a shortage of milk, and possibly a surplus of bad milk. But that is not all. Shall we really secure an improvement in the quality of the milk that will be produced? I understand that in this country to-day the average fat content of milk is about ⅓per cent. If I am wrong, the noble Viscount will correct me, but my information is that the percentage is considerably higher than 3 per cent.—that it is something like 3 ½, per cent., as I have said. Of course, if you eliminate all milk that is under 3 per cent. the average will be still higher.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I have not got the figures, so I cannot answer that point, but I would mention that far more milk is wanted to-day for manufacturing purposes. There is certainly scope for the production of far more cheese to-day, and a large quantity of milk which may be deficient in butter-fat may have an adequate amount of casein to make perfect cheese. At any rate, in various ways milk is being converted into products of great value for human consumption.
LORD SILKIN: I know that the noble Viscount is right: some use will be made of the deficient milk. But will there be an adequate supply of milk available for human consumption if this Amendment is carried? My view is that we shall immediately get a shortage. If I am right in saying that the average fat content at present is something like 3 ½per cent. it means that if you eliminate the milk of under 3 per cent. fat content the average would, as I say, be still higher. If you lay it down that milk must contain 3 per cent., as in this Amendment, are you not thereby enabling producers of milk to skim off anything over 3 per cent.? Are you not in fact inciting them to do so?
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: Not, surely, if you put a premium in the matter of price on high quality milk.
LORD SILKIN: That is an entirely different matter. The noble Viscount has not suggested that. That, of course, is an alternative method of getting better milk—indeed, the Minister of Agriculture mightconsider putting a premium on good milk.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: That is being done to-day, I believe, in regard to the Channel Island breeds.
LORD SILKIN: It is not universal, but no doubt it will be a matter for consideration. At the present time, there is no inducement to a producer to sell the consumer milk of higher fat content than the 3 per cent. which is laid down in the Amendment. It will be a definite incitement to producers of milk, as I say, to skim off the surplus and sell milk at 3 per cent. On the other hand, I recognise that this Amendment does at least give a guarantee that all milk sold to the consuming public will contain at least 3 per cent. of fat. It is like so many things, a balance of advantages. I am not saying that this Amendment is wrong or outrageous. Of course it is designed for a purpose we all support. But speaking for myself, on balance I think the public would suffer if this Amendment were carried. It would reduce the amount of milk available; it might possibly increase the cost—in fact it certainly would increase the cost; and it might, on the whole, reduce the amount of fat contest available to the public. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, will give very careful consideration before he accepts this Amendment. I would not wish to be dogmatic about it, but my own inclinations are against it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I rise to support the Amendment. I should like to begin by saying that I am sure noble Lords will agree with me that no one speaks in your Lordships' House with greater knowledge and authority than the noble Viscount; and, although my noble friend began by saying that he was suffering from something in the nature of a blackout, I can only say that his speech in support of this Amendment was so comprehensive and so convincing that has left me with the necessity of detain
350
ing your Lordships for only a very few minutes in amplification of what he said. I speak from the point of view of the health authority of a Metropolitan borough. There we are concerned with the quality of milk which is delivered to our population. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, says that the average milk produced in this country has a fat content of:3½, per cent. That may be true, but it only shows how fallacious averages are, because the milk which is being sold to the population of Kensington, which, as my noble friends opposite know, is largely a poor, working-class population, is not milk of the proper quality.
Our trouble about this "appeal to the cow" is that it prevents us from carrying out our duty of seeing that proper milk is delivered to the population. It has been going on for years, and the position is made bitter by the fact that the price is now going up. I will not detain your Lordships with many figures, but I can tell your Lordships that we have sample figures which have been taken over many years, and the quality of the milk is steadily deteriorating. It is due to the fact that the farmers are very largely breeding for quantity and not for quality. Recently, four samples were taken from a 400-gallon consignment of milk, and the results were: sample No. 1, milk fat 2·66 per cent.; sample No, 2, 2·76 per cent.; sample No. 3., 2 ·78 per cent.; sample No. 4. 2 ·75 per cent. It is even more remarkable with the samples we took with tuberculin tested milk which is delivered in the same sealed containers in which it is despatched from the farms. Even in that case, in 1952 forty samples were taken and no, less than 22 per cent. of those were deficient in fat. In the first three months of this year we took twenty-eight samples, and of those 14 per cent. were deficient. We are nearly always defeated by the "appeal to the cow." I believe that some people think it is almost irreverent to deny that genuine milk from the cow can be other than the best thing you can have, but the quality of milk from the cow really does not depend in any way, if I may say so without any irreverence, upon Divine Providence. What the quality of milk depends upon is the intelligence, the hard work and the skill of the farmer. That is what we have to encourage.

351
I am a little disappointed to know in advance from my noble friend that there is no chance of the acceptance of this Amendment. I am not altogether surprised but, after the wonderful reception which my noble friend's Amendment received from the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, I thought the noble Viscount was feeling so extraordinarily benevolent —he always looks benevolent—that his benevolence would extend to this Amendment. I appreciate from farmers that there would be difficulties, but would the difficulties be so great as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, thinks? If the noble Lord will look at page 26, he will see that this Bill does not apply to Scotland. It has already been mentioned that the Milk Marketing Board in Scotland insists on 3 ·4 per cent. Why should it be so much easier to produce good milk in Scotland than it is in England? Both Scotland and Northern Ireland have better milk than we have in England and I think that if the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, is not going to accept this Amendment, the Committee is entitled to know from him what he is going to do about it.
I hope we shall hear that some very urgent campaign is going to be carried out. I am sure the National Farmers' Union would co-operate but, of course, they have a large body of people who are greatly interested in quantity and not in quality. I might mention this, apropos of the Working Party upon whose report, I think, the Government are relying. I do not say it in any nasty way, but I think it is a fact that that Working Party contained no representative of the consumers, of the local authorities or of the Ministry of Health. It does not seem to me that that necessarily is a document which should guide the Government in their final decision. Moreover, apart from Scotland, we have the condition of affairs in the United States, where, I believe, they insist on a higher quality. Now we are perhaps coming to the point I really want to make. I think that the Government ought to study the possibility of payment by quality. After all, a farmer is only human; he wants to produce good milk, but I am afraid it is a case of the profit motive—if the noble Lords opposite will forgive my referring to anything so discreditable from their point of view.
352
If you make it more profitable to the farmer to produce better milk, he will do so; and I am quite sure that one of the things that the Government ought to study is whether we could not give some premium for additional fat content, or something of that sort. In conclusion, all I want to say is that the Amendment has my support, and if the Government, for practical reasons, cannot accept it, then I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell us that he will come back to us within a matter of months—six months or some reasonable period—and say what the Government are going to do in order to bring the milk which is sold in the large industrial areas of England into line with that which is already effectively produced in other countries.
LORD BURDEN: I hope it will not be an embarrassment to the noble Viscount to be supported by someone from this side of the House—
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: It is very unusual.
LORD BURDEN: In any case, it gives me an opportunity to repeat what has been said by other noble Lords—how much we admire the indomitable courage of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, in coming down here to plead for a cause so dear to his heart. We have all listened with great interest to his speech. In regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, said concerning the profit motive, I may say that the trouble to-day is that the profit motive of the present scheme works in the wrong way: it works in favour of quantity and not in favour of quality.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I agree.
LORD BURDEN: I, for one, will support the profit motive in regard to quality in this instance, without departing from the orthodox creed. The noble Viscount, in moving this Amendment, said that the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association support the Amendment. I can say that the officers of the local authorities, who will he responsible, I think, for carrying out many of the terms of this Bill when it becomes an Act—I mean those highly skilled and highly trained men known in the local

353
government service as the sanitary inspectors—have also given great consideration to this Amendment, and support it, because it does, in one way, provide a convenient yardstick for them to work with in every instance.
I am not worried too much at the prospect of there being a shortage of milk of 3 per cent. butter-fat content. One knows that, with some application, that standard could be achieved by many farmers in this country, if not most of them. While it is cheaper and easier to produce milk of a lower butter-fat content, that will be done, and, while we are content with lower nutritional standards, that will go on. Of course, I know there are administrative difficulties in regard to this Amendment. Everyone knows that the miserable practice goes on of mixing the milk of a higher fat content with that of a lower fat content in order to provide a levelling out, until it is practically impossible in this country, unless One happens to be near a farm with a good Jersey herd, to get a glass of rich milk such as we used to get as boys. I hope the noble Viscount in charge of this Bill will realise that this matter is supported by bodies such as the Association of Municipal Corporations, the County Councils Association, and those who will have to work the Bill. Higher nutritional standards are demanded. I hope that, if the noble Viscount cannot: accept this Amendment, he will at all events give us some hope that something like it will be considered for the future.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: It would ill become a member of my profession to remain silent in a debate on such an important subject, and I naturally support all the desires of my noble friend Lord. Bledisloe to improve generally the quality of milk for the population. But I differ from him on the question of ways and means, as I differ from him when he says that, for medical reasons, he is going to absent himself from your Lordships' House for a few months—I could not see any evidence for such a requirement. I differ from the noble Viscount in regard to ways and means because I think that his Amendment would he hound to lead to a decrease in the milk available for consumption; and I think that would be unfortunate. It may be that matters will improve, but that means this is a long-term policy and that there is a hard time to be gone through first. On a previous
354
occasion, the noble Viscount resisted the desire of the previous Government to introduce legislation for the pasteurisation of milk for the prevention of tuberculosis, because he felt it might interfere with his long-term policy, of such an excellent character, to improve all the herds and the production of milk. But that was such a long-term policy that, meantime, the children of the country were to be exposed to the tortures of bovine tuberculosis.
I think the Amendment will not only remove the poor milk from the market but will reduce the amount of milk available. I agree with some of the suggestions that have been outlined, such as that the price as well as the milk can be graded, and in penalising I would go so far as to say that anything below the 3 per cent. of fat content should be labelled sub-standard milk, rather than saying that anything above that standard shall cost more. But if people are buying sub-standard milk, then let them know that it is such. For all culinary and domestic purposes, where milk is going to be cooked, many people may prefer to buy the cheaper milk, leaving available a larger amount of the high-grade milk for the children and infants who may need it.
5.44 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: We have had a very interesting debate on this subject, and I have no doubt that Her Majesty's Government will take note of what has been said. I must confess that I wish I had an answer to give to the Committee which would be more acceptable to my noble friend Lord Bledisloe—not because I think he is right, and not only because what he says is held in such regard by your Lordships, but also because I happen to know that this is a subject which is very near to his heart; and I know that at this moment he ought to be in the South of France for his health, but he has stayed in this climate a little longer, in order to make the speech which he made to your Lordships. I think we should all be extremely grateful to him for doing that.
He mentioned a speech about quality that I made not long ago in Shrewsbury. Of course, I mean every word of what I said. I think that in the future the quality of the goods which the farmers of this country produce will be more

355
and more important in the free economy into which we are moving—indeed, it may well be that high quality will command a much higher price than it has done in the past, and, consequently, low quality will command less. For that reason, we are all, I think, in sympathy with the general purpose behind my noble friend's Amendment. But as he himself has said, the Amendment would abolish the "appeal to the cow" and would make it a criminal offence to sell milk with a butter-fat content of less than 3 per cent. I should have thought that the law on this point is at present just about right. There is a presumptive minimum of 3 per cent., but it is not illegal to sell milk containing less butter-fat than that if the farmer can prove that it is milk as produced by his cow. My noble friend has quoted a number of people, and quite a number of Committees, in his support, but I have a Committee to support me—one which was set up by the Socialist Government and which reported in 1950. It was set up especially with a view to making recommendations about this sort of thing.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Is the noble Lord referring to the Working Committee?
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Was there anybody from the Ministry of Health or a consumer upon that body?
LORD CARRINGTON: I could not say. I do not know the composition of that Committee. Noble Lords opposite set up the Committee. I do not think my noble friend can sweep aside their recommendations quite so lightly as that because there may have been no consumer on the Committee. The members of the Committee were quite genuinely striving to produce some good conclusions out of a very difficult problem. If I may just quote one sentence from their Report, they say that
"producers and distributors would resent a departure from the traditional view that milk as it comes from the cow is genuine, and we consider that the interests of the consumer"—
they were thinking about the consumer—
"can be safeguarded by less drastic means."
One ought to bear in mind that we are all in agreement that milk which has a low
356
butter-fat content is of poor quality, but it is not by any means injurious, in the sense that the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, has been talking about injurious substances in foods. We are all agreed that it is necessary to protect the consumer against deliberate fraud by the adulteration of milk, but it would be an entirely new principle, and one which, so far as I know, applies to no other product, to make it a criminal offence to sell a natural product merely because the quality of the product was poor. After all, the public would expect the quality of a natural product to vary. Lord Bledisloe's Amendment here goes further than the Amendment that he did not move to Clause 3, because instead of conferring a regulation-making power on the Minister to prescribe standards for milk, it would introduce the standard as soon as the Bill became law. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, it would not be possible for producers to comply with this standard at all times. All of us who have had anything to do with farming know, for instance, that there is a variation between morning and evening milk at different seasons of the year, and that there is a variation in the butter-fat content given by a cow in different lactations. I am sure my noble friend Lord Hudson would have something to say on that subject.
I feel that I am called upon emphatically to defend the farmers against what I believe was an accusation cast upon them by the noble Lord, Lord Burden. After all, the farmers of this country have done a magnificent job of work. During and since the war, they have been asked to produce large quantities of milk. They have produced enormous quantities of milk, quantities such as have never before been produced in this country. Never has the milk been of such a high standard as it has been over these past few years; and when the noble Lord talks about and sighs over the "good old days," and says that he now cannot get a glass of milk such as he used to do, then, with the greatest respect, I think that is nonsense. Never have the farmers produced such good milk as they are producing at the present time.
LORD BURDEN: That may be true, but is milk of that kind being sold to the public? That was the point I made. It is supported by the evidence of local

357
authorities all over the Metropolitan area, and further evidenced by the support which the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association are giving to this Amendment. Lord Carrington cannot get away with debating tricks of that kind.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, may well be right in what he says about what the farmers are now producing: our trouble is concerned with what the consumer is getting. Where I differ from the noble Lord is when he said that the Working Party said that the interests of the consumer could be safeguarded in other ways. What are those other ways to be? I am bitterly disappointed at the noble Lord's reply so far. He does not seem to have understood the grounds on which this Amendment is being supported.
LORD SALTOUN: May I intervene to put this point? Is it not possible for a farmer to feed a cow with highly liquid food, in order to produce a very much bigger gallonage of milk of very poor quality? I think that would be very wrong.
LORD CARRINGTON: I, too, consider that that would be a very wrong thing to do, but I do not think that the majority of farmers in this country are dishonest or intend in any way to defraud the public. I repeat: they have done magnificent work, and they are now producing better quality milk than ever before. My noble friend said he did not know whether the figures which Lord Silkin gave, including an average of 3·5 per cent. of butter-fat throughout the country, were true. I am told that that is a figure which appears in the Report of the Working Party on this subject. It is all very well to sweep away argument on such ground by saying, "Oh, averages—that just goes to show that averages do not count." I think I am right in saying that., in economic debates, I have known Lord Balfour of Burleigh use averages on occasion, when he wanted to make a point. Indeed, with respect, I think he used them when he gave us some examples of figures taken in Kensington. They were not just figures relating to one pint of milk; I think they must have been averages taken with respect to quite a lot
358
of milk. I feel that the proper way to deal with low quality milk is to see that a lower price is paid for it, as Lord Silkin has suggested. Indeed, in some cases we are doing this and paying the Channel Islands' producers 4d. a gallon more. I think it would be inequitable and unfair to make it a criminal offence to sell milk of a less content of butter-fat than 3 per cent.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I must ask leave of the Committee to say that I hope no one will go away with the idea that I am attacking the character of the farmers. We all agree that the farmers have done a magnificent job in increasing production. Our trouble is that it is true that the quality of the milk—I am speaking now of Kensington—has been steadily deteriorating for fifty years, so it is not the fault of this Government, or the present farmers, that it has deteriorated. And the price is going up. While I understand the Government's reasons for not accepting this Amendment, I am bitterly disappointed that Lord Carrington has not responded to my invitation to tell your Lordships, if the Government cannot accept the Amendment, what they will try to do to remedy what I assure your Lordships really is a very grave situation.
LORD BURDEN: May I say that Lord Carrington's statement that I attacked the farmers was an utter travesty and a misrepresentation of what I said.
LORD CARRINGTON: You said you could not get a decent glass of milk.
LORD BURDEN: I said that in many instances the milk was being mixed before it reached the consumer. Everyone knows that that is the practice. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in attacking me was endeavouring—and it is not worthy of him—to make a Party political point, in view of the fact that the farmers deeply resent the way in which they are being let down by the present Government.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I hope the discussion will not proceed on these lines.
LORD BURDEN: The noble Viscount should keep his noble friend in order then.
5.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: If no one else is going to speak, I feel that I have no option but to withdraw my Amendment. But this is a matter on which I feel very strongly, and I withdraw the Amendment on the footing that the Government, as represented by Viscount Woolton and Lord Carrington, will take in hand a genuine campaign amongst the farming community—and, indeed, if I may say so, among the distributing agencies—with a view to improving the quality of milk as purveyed to the consumers in this country. I appeal very strongly to my noble friend Lord Wool-ton to give us some assurance that the objective which I have put forward is accepted by the Government—the objective, or the goal, in regard to milk quality—and that at no distant date in the future they hope to make it possible to establish a minimum fat content of 3 per cent., as every other civilised country in the world has done—indeed, in most cases they have improved upon that figure.
I cannot help feeling sorry that Lord Carrington has made the speech which he has made to-day, because, if I may say so, a more lucid or enlightened representative of the Government on the Front Bench I have not known since he accepted office. I should like to tell him that I believe that two-thirds of the more reputable members of the farming community share the views and objects which I have represented to the House to-day. But there is a tail, and it is that tail that most of us who value the reputation of British farmers want tackled very definitely by Her Majesty's Government, through the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Food and, if necessary, the Ministry of Health. I am sure that if the Government can do so, they will be surprised at the comparatively short time in which the goal that I have presented will be attained. I withdraw this Amendment only on the footing that we shall have some assurance that the Government mean to carry out some campaign to that effect, so that at no distant date that comparatively humble goal will be attained. May I just add, after listening to the speech of my noble friend Lord Webb-Johnson, that I like the idea, as a temporary step, of selling milk containing under 3 per cent. butter-fat as
360
sub-standard milk, and purveying it at lower prices than that of the 3 per cent. milk. As I have said, I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment, and I should like some assurance from the Government along the lines which I have indicated.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I do not know whether I can help the Committee in this matter. I should be failing in my duty if I were not sensible of the feeling of the Committee on this subject. The debate has been led by one of the most distinguished agriculturists in the country and a man to whom we all listen with profound respect. Since he is a very old friend of mine, I am sure he will allow me to say that in this case we have listened to him with all the more gratitude, because I know that he has postponed going abroad because he felt so strongly on this subject. I think there can be no doubt about the desirability of the end he has in view. I can assure the House that the Government have much sympathy with it, and that it will be their aim to raise the level of milk production so that the fat content will be above 3 per cent. Since this concerns a Ministry with which I am not intimately connected, the House will not expect me to give an undertaking to-day about precisely how they will do that, but I can assure my noble friend and the House that we will make representations to the Minister concerned.
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Burden, will allow me to say that my noble friend Lord Carrington was not really trying to make arty political point, and had no intention of creating any anger in the noble Lord. It is not for me to apologise for my noble friend, but the last thing in the world anyone wants to do is to make this into a Party affair. I hope the assurance I have given my noble friend, in very careful language, will satisfy him.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: On that footing, I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.3 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN EARL ST. ALDWYN moved, after Clause 10 to insert the following new clause:
"11. The Minister may make regulations for controlling the use of milk churns, milk bottles and milk crates and for prohibiting the use of such articles by any person without the consent

361
of the owner and for requiring any person who obtains possession or control of such articles to take reasonable care of them and not to retain them for an unreasonable time or to wilfully destroy or wilfully damage them."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with the eternal problem of milk bottles. It is a problem which has been with us for many years and one which, unless this Amendment is accepted, is going to stay with us for a good many more. Up till July of last year, under certain regulations prosecutions could be taken and were taken in a number of cases which involved fairly substantial fines on people who were hoarding anything up to 300 bottles. I know that the general reaction of the public to a milk bottle is to pour the milk out and forget about the milk bottle. It gets shoved under the kitchen table or the kitchen sink and in due course gets out to the backyard and eventually back to the dairyman at the side door; but during that journey from the kitchen to the side door, milk which may be left in the bottle goes bad, bacteria breed, flies use it. Occasionally someone wants to pour some oil out of a cart, and a milk bottle is picked up and used. To due course, that oily bottle gets back to the dairy. The problem of cleaning alone is appalling. These bottles have to be separated from ordinary bottles, and as it is not possible for a dairyman to guarantee that every one will be perfectly clean, he finds he has to throw a number of them away. Obviously, it is unsatisfactory from the dairyman's point of view; and from the point of view of the public, these sources of potential infection which are spread all over the town increase the risk very considerably when there is any form of epidemic. It is getting late and I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer than I need I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 10 insert the following new clause—
(" 11. The Minister may make regulations for controlling the use of milk churns, milk bottles and milk crates and for prohibiting the use of such articles by any person without the consent of the owner and for requiring any person who obtains possession or control of such articles to take reasonable care of them and not to retain them for an unreasonable time or to wilfully destroy or wilfully damage them.")—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
LORD CARRINGTON: A provision. similar to the one which the noble Earl is now suggesting should be put into the Bill, existed during the war and continued in force until 1953. It was revoked in the Milk (Great Britain) Order, 1953. for the reason that the acute shortage of labour and raw materials which had made the regulation necessary in the first place no longer existed. As bottlers of milk are obliged to clean their bottles thoroughly under the Milk and Dairies Regulations, and as I believe they have now enough plant to do this, there is really a very small number of bottles which have beets improperly handled being used for milk. So far as the recovery of milk bottles is concerned, I think that the Amendment would be out of keeping with food and drugs legislation as a whole, which imposes obligations on producers and traders and not on consumers. Moreover —and I think this is a powerful point which will appeal to the noble Earl—if we accepted this Amendment, it would mean that there would have to be frequent entry into private dwelling houses, a procedure which I am sure your Lordships would not agree with and which, in any event, ought to be kept down to the minimum. For that reason, I hope the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.
EARL ST. ALOWYN: I cannot quite accept the noble Lord's statement that dairymen now have sufficient machinery for cleaning bottles. They have ample machinery for cleaning normal bottles but not for cleaning those used for a number of purposes other than the containing of milk. These bottles still have to be cleaned by hand or thrown away. I appreciate the points the noble Lord has made and, with regret, ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave" withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Supplementary provisions as to food and drug authorities]:
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: The next two Amendments are complementary. They are drafting Amendments, and I hope your Lordships will be good enough to accept them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 35, leave out from (" under ") to (" before") in lire 36 and insert (" the last foregoing section, being—

(a) an application under subsection (2) of that section; or

363

(b) an application under subsection (3) of that section for directions that a council shad continue to be a food and drugs authority,

shall be made.")—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 38, leave out from ("census") to end of line 42.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13:
Enforcement of certain enactments and regulations.
(5) Proceedings shall not be instituted by council—
unless they have given to the Minister not less than fourteen days' notice of their intention to institute the proceedings.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved in subsection (5) to leave out "fourteen" and insert "twenty-eight" [days]. The noble Lord said: With the consent of your Lordships, I will deal with this Amendment and the next together. I understand that Clause 13, subsection (5), replaces the subsection in the Defence Regulations (Sales of Food) 1943–1945, under which a prosecution could not take place without the specific consent of the Minister. The Bill alters that and provides that the responsibility for prosecution shall rest upon the local authorities, a new departure with which I do not at all disagree. I think it is absolutely right that we should devolve to the local authorities this responsibility. Nevertheless, we must try to build up at the centre some sort of common code which will govern when a prosecution should or should not take place.
The Amendments I move do two things. The first Amendment prolongs the period of notice from fourteen to twenty-eight days, and the second says that the prosecution should not be started by a local authority without not only a notification to the Minister, as the Bill now requires, but also some explanation of the reasons which actuate the local authority in commencing prosecution. As regards the second point, as I understand the Bill, the local authority would have only to notify the Minister. No doubt, in practice, they would give their reasons, but it is just as well that we should make clear that the Minister is entitled to
364
receive these reasons. The extension of time seems to me necessary in that a considerable amount of consultation will have to take place, and twenty-eight days does not seem to be an unreasonable period. If the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, feels inclined to be sympathetic towards these Amendments I will not develop my argument further, although powerful arguments could be produced as to why different local authorities should not prosecute at the same time for one common offence which may have been unwittingly committed by some supplier of a widely used product, and also why no firm should run the risk of separate prosecutions all over the country for a single offence. I believe that this responsibility for local authorities. and at the same time the building-up of a code at the centre as to what the local authorities should do, is an expression of the right form of decentralisation of powers to local government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 42 leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("twenty-eight ").—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: The noble Lord has put a new point of view to me in his brief speech. I should have thought that fourteen days was sufficient time for a notification, but the point of view that has impressed me is that there may be several authorities making these notifications from different parts of the country for something that arises from the same material. I wonder whether the noble Lord will be good enough to let me consider this matter with the Ministry of Food, and to deal with it on the Report stage. I am willing to accept the second Amendment spoken to by the noble Lord. It seems to me natural courtesy that people should say why they are going to do it, and what a good thing it would be to legalise a little natural courtesy !
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I am grateful to the noble Viscount. I beg leave to withdraw the first Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 43, at end insert ("together with a summary of their reasons for so doing ").—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Repeal of certain administrative provisions of 1950 Act]:
On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BURDEN: I want formally to mention that on the Report stage I shall move the deletion of the whole of paragraph (a). That paragraph, as I read it, puts the local council under the control of, and subject to the criticism of. a subcommittee of the local agricultural committees. As I say, I will deal with the point on the Report stage.
Clause 15 agreed to.
EARL ST. ALDWYN EARL ST. ALDWYN moved, after Clause 15, to insert the following new clause:
"16. The 1950 Act shall be amended by inserting at the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section thirteen the words it shall not be made a condition of licences that sampling authorities cap obtain samples free of charge '."
The noble Earl said: Now that designated milk is almost general throughout the country, the distributive milk trade are worried by the amount of samples that they have to give away free to the inspectors. For instance, a retailer may be selling T.T., pasteurised and sterilised milk, and may have to give the inspector a pint bottle of each. There are a large number of small retailers who are selling, maybe, twenty or forty bottles of milk a day, and no more; yet they have to give these samples to the inspector. They cannot give him a smaller sample, because the bottles are not any smaller. It seems a bit hard that what virtually is the whole of their day's profit, and perhaps more, has to be given away to the inspector, when under another heading the inspector is entitled to buy these samples. I should emphasise that I am talking only about designated milk and the samples taken under the Designated Milk Regulations. Under the Butter Fat Regulations the samples are invariably paid for, and I would urge that that practice should be extended to the designated milk also. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 15, insert the said new clause.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
LORD BURDEN: I should like to say a few words in support of this Amendment. I do so because, first of all, it seems to me hard on the producers to have this inflicted on them; and secondly, because it is a little unfair on the people who have to do the sampling. I am not asking noble Lords to endeavour to think of the language that might be used to the inspectors when; they call for some samples— I leave that to the imagination of others who have a greater vocabulary than myself. I should like to support the noble Viscount in his Amendment.
LORD CARRINGTON:It is common form throughout all food and drugs legislation that authorised persons should be able to take samples of food free. For instance, as regards milk, it would be impossible to arrange for payment to be made when a sample is taken at a collecting point, or during transit. Therefore, it is necessary to take some samples free. What I understand my noble friend has in mind is the sample which is taken free by the authorised person from the retailer, particularly when the retailer is in a small way of business. I do not want to depress my noble friend, but his Amendment would not do what he has in mind, because, as I say, there is a general power throughout the whole of this legislation that authorised persons shall have these samples free. The Amendment would not work. However, I am told that, generally speaking, when samples are taken from retailers they are almost invariably paid for. Although there is no obligation specifically laid on the authorised person to pay for them, it is, in fact, almost common form.
LORD BURDEN: I know that that is the position, but would it be possible for the noble Lord to consider indicating in the circular which will be sent out when this Bill becomes law the hardship which might arise by inspectors demanding samples?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I feel sure the I noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is right in what he says, and that I have been speaking under a slight misapprehension. If he can give an assurance that some instructions can be given to see that, particularly in the case of the small retailer, he is paid for the samples taken from him, I shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD CARRINGTON: I will most certainly look into the point raised by the two noble Lords. It would apply not only to retailers of milk, but equally to retailers in other lines of business. I will not promise anything because, as the noble Earl knows, I am not responsible for what goes on. But I will certainly look into it and see what I can do.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Powers of sampling]:
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: This is a drafting Amendment to ensure that samples can be taken at such places as a marquee. I hope your Lordships will be good enough to accept it without any further commendation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 21, leave out ("or aircraft") and insert ("aircraft or place").—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16. as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17:
Disposal of samples taken for analysis
17.—(1) A sampling officer who purchases or takes a sample of any food, drug or substance for the purpose of analysis by a public analyst shall forthwith divide it into three parts, each part to be marked and sealed or fastened up in such manner as its nature will permit, and shall deal with the parts in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
(3) Of the remaining parts of the sample, the sampling officer shall, unless he decides not to have an analysis made, submit one for analysis in accordance with section sixty-nine of the principal Act. and retain the other for future comparison.
6.20 p.m.
LORD WALERAN LORD WALERAN moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "four" for "three" [parts]. The noble Lord said: There are two Amendments in my name, and the second is consequential on the first being agreed to. The real principle of my Amendment is two-fold: first, fairness to the manufacturer if a prosecution is made. Most of your Lordships will know that if goods are suspect it is essential that the manufacturer should get hold of the suspect sample immediately. This is particularly true in the
368
case of foodstuffs or anything which is perishable, because, if it lies around, by the time it gets to the manufacturer an analysis of the sample is almost impossible. As matters stand to-day, although one of the three samples is kept by the retailer, until he is informed by the inspector he does not know that the prosecution is going to take place. He then sends the sample to the manufacturer, and by that time it is impossible to find out what has happened.
I thought it would be wise to ascertain whether the industry agreed with this principle, and so I got in touch with the Research Association of the British Food Manufacturing Industries, because I believe that they are the people who know what goes on. The motor car industry and the paper industry run research associations for the purpose of getting their products absolutely right, and those associations are the people who would like to get hold of a sample of anything which had gone wrong. May I quote what the Director of the Research Association has said?:
" I wish wholeheartedly to support this move, as it has been our experience on a number of occasions that by the time the manufacturer has been notified that a summons has been issued, the second sample is out of condition."
Apart from fairness to the manufacturer, who, as a good manufacturer in this country, is always trying to keep his products right on the top line, it is of value to him always to know at any time how any of his products is going on. To my mind, he is the first person to want immediately any sample taken.
It may be that the noble Viscount who will reply regarding this Amendment will say that the Ministry feel that, as there are something like 20,000 samples taken every year and only 1,200 prosecutions, industry would not be prepared to accept and examine the sample on the 20,000 occasions, but would rather have only the 1,200 samples—I am just guessing at the figures—when there are prosecutions. In case that should be the answer, I went a little further and got in touch with the Food Manufacturers' Federation, who are closely connected with their research establishment, and I received from the deputy general secretary a categorical

369
answer which, with the permission of your Lordships, I will read. He said:
"You can take it that the manufacturers would in no way object to this"—
that is to say, to having every sample that is taken sent to them—
"in fact, it would be of advantage to them to know always at the earliest possible moment that samples have been taken and to receive a part of such samples at the earliest possible moment. 'You will realise that in the past, when they have not had a part of the sample direct, they have often had to rely on the third part handed to the vender, who may or may not have taken good care of it."
I will leave out a little of the letter, but he goes on:
"The main point at issue is to get into the hands of the manufacturer a part of the sample whether or not a prosecution is to take place."
Now I do not think it would be difficult, when a sample has been taken and divided into four parts, for one part to go to the manufacturer immediately, whether or not a prosecution is to take place. It is fair to the manufacturer to know that the product is being examined. He can then do his own analysis, and he will be happy to do it. If a prosecution is made, there will not have been the delay which may make the sample he receives later incapable of analysis in his own laboratory. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 8, leave out ("three") and insert ("four").—(Lord Waleran.)
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I am not completely convinced by what the noble Lord has said, or by the evidence he has produced. To begin with, there is the question of the delay. Now there is no delay, because the sample is taken in the public interest and, therefore, goes to the public analyst; and it goes to him straight away. There is no question of its being a different substance by the time that the analysis takes place. In due time the manufacturer, as also the retailer, knows the result of the investigation that the public analyst has made. The noble Lord, Lord Waleran, says that the manufacturer has to rely on the vendor. He does not; he has to rely on the public analyst. The vendor is the person who is being prosecuted in this matter, and there is no question of relying on him.
370
Your Lordships may wonder why I am making such heavy weather of accepting what may seem to be rather obvious, if this is what the manufacturers want. My sole reason is this—and I am going to press it. I do not want to add to the number of processes through which the Government have to go, whatever the, Government may be. There is nearly always not only a manufacturer but a retailer. There is very often a number one wholesaler and, not infrequently, a number two wholesaler, both of whom may be involves. I wonder whether the noble Lord thinks that this expense to industry is really worth while? It is, fortunately, not usual for prosecutions to take place—they take place in the minority of cases. Is it really a good thing to burden industry with all the analyses that would have to be made every time a public officer in the course of his duty took a sample? He may not take a sample because he thinks there is anything wrong. It is part of his duty to sample frequently, and if all those samples have to be divided into four parts and the manufacturers have to analyse them, I wonder whether it is going to be worth while. If the noble Lord thinks so—and obviously he has been to considerable trouble before addressing your Lordships and has taken expert advice—then I will consider the matter on the Report stage, if he cares to raise it then. If I may respectfully say so, as a man who has spent a good deal of his time in business (although I have never been a manufacturer of food) I very much wonder whether this Amendment would bring benefit to the food manufacturer. If the noble Lord is content to leave the matter there, I am at his disposal.
LORD WALERAN: I am very much, obliged to the noble Viscount. There is this rather difficult question: that if there is a prosecution the manufacturer cannot possibly challenge the public analyst, because he has had no chance of making-his own analysis. By the time he has got his sample it incapable of analysis. It is rather like this distressful business of the Comet in the sea. The effect of salt water on aluminium is corrosion, and the parts collected, any, will not he in the same condition as if they had fallen on the ground. You cannot find out the reason why things of this sort

371
go wrong. I would be content if the manufacturer of the product was notified immediately within twenty-four hours of the taking of the sample. After all, samples are not taken from first or second wholesalers; they are taken as a rule from the retailers. If he could be told right away so that he could get hold of his samples, I think I should be satisfied with that assurance.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: The noble Lord would want more than an assurance: he would want it in the Bill. If instead of asking that a sample should be taken he will put down at the Report stage an Amendment to the effect that notification should be given, then I might accept it. If I may place myself at his disposal and get formal words prepared, I shall be glad to do so.
LORD WALERAN: I thank the noble Viscount very much and, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL ST. ALDWYN,EARL ST. ALDWYN, moved to add to the clause:
"(8) Where a sample purchased by a sampling officer consists of a bottle of milk which the inspector believes has been bottled by another person, and that other person's name appears on the bottle the sample shall be divided into four not three portions, and the fourth portion shall be sent without delay to the other person."
The noble Earl said: This is not dissimilar from the last Amendment, except that it is concerned with milk and milk only. It is that a sample should be divided into four parts and not three, so that the wholesaler who has probably bottled the milk concerned can have his own test taken at the earliest possible opportunity. There have been cases where a wholesaler has been prosecuted and the first thing he knew about it was the summons. There was one case in which the summons arrived five weeks after the sample was taken, and he had had no notification whatsoever. It is a matter of justice that he should have a chance to make his own examination of the sample.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 34, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
LORD BURDEN: I hope the Government will accept this Amendment. It is one of some importance for those who are engaged or will be engaged in the administration of this Act. I think it would lead to the simplifying of troubles which arise in those odd cases where the bottling has been done by another person.
LORD CARRINGTON: For the same reason which Lord Woolton has given, I could not accept this Amendment as it stands. To give one example of the difficulties, it would not really be of much use to divide the sample into four and then send a registered packet of milk to the producer: it might be in a very different condition when it arrived from that which it was in when it was sent, and would not, therefore, be of much value to the man who produced the milk. But I think there is more to be said in favour of this Amendment with regard to milk producers, because they are producing a perishable commodity. I have some ideas about how we could meet this position. I do not promise anything now, but we might discuss this matter between now and the Report stage and devise some formula to cover the point.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clauses 18 to 27 agreed to.
Clause 28:
Interpretation
(2) For the purposes of this Act the supply of food for human consumption, otherwise than by sale, at in or from any canteen. club, hotel, boarding house, school, hospital or institution shall be deemed to be a sale of that food, and references to purchasing and purchasers shall be construed accordingly: and where in any catering establishment the place where food is served to the customers is different from the place where the food is consumed, both those places shall be deemed to be places in which food is sold.
"premises" means a building or part of a building, and any forecourt, yard or place of storage used in connection with a building or part of a building;
EARL ST. ALDWYN EARL ST. ALDWYN moved, in subsection (2), after "any" to insert "cater-

373
ing establishment." The noble Earl said: 'This Amendment is purely to ensure that every catering establishment is covered. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line;6, after ("any") insert ("catering establishment").—(Earl St. Aldwya.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: This Amendment is to ensure that the word "analyse "—which occurs, for example, in Section 69 of the 1938 Act—shall exclude the performance of a biological assay to correspond with the definition of "analysis" in this clause. After to clear an exposition, I hope noble Lords will be prepared to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 31, at end insert ("and ' analyse ' shall be construed accordingly;").—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARRINGTON: This is merely an Amendment of he definition clause to ensure that land around buildings, as well as buildings, is associated in the definition, so that a person carrying on the trade of dairyman or dairy farmer in the absence of buildings would be required to register. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 14, at end insert ("and includes, in relation to dairies, dairy farmers and the trade of dairyman or dairy farmer, any land other than buildings;").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Application to Northern Ireland]:
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: This Amendment is intended to make it clear that the powers of the Northern Ireland Parliament to enact legislation corresponding with the enactments mentioned in this clause are to be measured by those enactments as extended to Northern Ireland in the First Schedule, and not in their original form. I hope your Lordships will take it as a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 30, leave out from ("Act") to ("to") in line 32 and insert ("as extended by this Act").—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30. as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
6.39 p.m.
First Schedule [Application of certain provisions of principal Act and this Act to Northern Ireland]:
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: These two Amendments are complementary. They simplify the provisions by which an official of the Ministry of Food may take samples in Northern Ireland, and make them the same as lose applying to authorised officers of local authorities under Clauses 16 to 18, as adapted to Northern Ireland by the table on page 29. Section 72 of the 1938 Act allows the Minister of Food to direct officers of his Department to take samples in certain cases. The previous wording would have involved its application and adaptation to Northern. Ireland, and its eventual application in Northern Irish legislation which is eventually to replace these provisions. Those Amendments are sent to us by the Northern Ireland Government. I hope that your Lordships will accept them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 10, leave out (" seventy-two,")—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 37, at end insert ("as aforesaid or by the Minister of Food;").—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 3, leave out ("(5)") and insert (" (6)").—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule [Minor and consequential amendments]:
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: This is a drafting Amendment. The term "Minister" in the 1938 Act, save, as amended by the Transfer of Functions (Food and

375
Drugs) Order, 1948, designates the Minister of Health, while in this Bill it means the Minister of Food. The Minister of Health is meant here. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 24, after ("Minister") insert ("of Health").—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARRINGTON: The noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland, when he made inquiries in his Committee of Inquiry into the Slaughter of Horses, found that conditions in some knackers' yards were very unsatisfactory. The object of this Amendment is to ensure that local authorities shall make by-laws if the Minister so requires. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 29, at end, insert—
("Section 58
In subsection (1), after the word ' may' there shall be inserted the words `and shall if so required by the Minister of Food'.")— (Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.42 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved after the words "they think fit" in the amendment to Section 92, to insert:
"and at the end of subsection (4) there shall be added the following words:
'and in particular shall

(a) consult organisations representing the principal trades or businesses likely in their opinion to be required to comply with such regulations; and

(b) thereafter provide an opportunity for the lodging and consideration of objections to a draft of such regulations.'"

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to strengthen the consultative provisions which are contained in subsection (4) of Section 92 of the principal Act. These provisions state:
"Before making the regulations, the Minister shall consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit."
There are various bodies engaged in the catering trade who feel that there should be a much more specific provision for prior consultation, especially if there is to be any certainty that the Bill will be the effective instrument in advancing the interests that we all have equally at heart —namely, higher standards of cleanliness and higher standards of hygiene in food.
The regulations to be made under this Bill will deal with a wide variety of detail, and under this Bill there will be created a whole range of new offences, with fairly high penalties. It is vital. therefore, that such regulations should be the subject of most careful consultation with the representative trade organisations concerned. Such consultation should also take into account the objections of those concerned, in so far as this will ensure that the regulations receive proper publicity before they are introduced, and will increase the likelihood of the observance of the regulations. This Bill gives the Minister wide powers to introduce regulations over a particularly wide range of subjects. For example, under Clause 6, regulations can be introduced laying down in detail what is required in connection with cleanliness and washing facilities, and regulations can be mad., for prohibiting or regulating not only the materials to be used in the preparation of food for human consumption but even the utensils used in the process.
Under Clause 5, subsection (3), the Ministers are given wide powers to impose by regulations whatever requirements they like about the descriptions which may be applied to food for human consumption. It is obvious that the amount of detail that can be gone into in these regulations is almost infinite. I am informed that some regulations which were proposed recently for Scotland laid down that the temperature of washing water should be not less than 170 degrees Fahrenheit, which is a temperature considerably higher than the human hand can stand: also, that cats should not be allowed in kitchens, although it seems that the same regulations proposed no similar ban on the presence of mice in such places. If the Minister really intended to bring in regulations to say what materials could or could not be used in any particular dish served in a particular restaurant, he could do so under Clause 6: but I submit that he would first want to have the fullest consultation with such a body as the hotel and restaurant industry which has to cater for every kind of taste. I hope that the Government will look sympathetically on this Amendment, the only purpose of which is to strengthen the present somewhat loose consultative provisions in the main Act and to ensure

377
that representative trade organizations, who are not hard to identify, should have an opportunity of being consulted before regulations are made and of making objections in respect of the draft of such regulations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 36, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
LORD GIFFORD: I should like briefly to support this Amendment. The organisations representing the catering trade are equally concerned with securing an improvement in hygienic conditions of handling food. I feel that their technical knowledge and advice will be most useful in making these regulations. I think, and they feel, that it is most important that they should be consulted when these regulations are framed.
LORD CARRINGTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for his suggestion. Of course, in practice, all organisations which are thought to have an interest in proposals for regulations are consulted and are kept informed of modifications introduced as the consultations proceed. I think. it would be invidious, however, to particularise trade organisations and to leave out professional organisations and those representing local authorities, which of course must claim equal status. We were thinking of putting in some words on the lines suggested. The clause might read:
" Before making the regulations the Ministers shall consult such representative organisations as appear to them substantially to represent the interests concerned for the purposes of those regulations."
Something on those lines would, I feel, satisfy my noble friend. I am not so sure about the second half of his Amendment. I am told that the proposal to make it obligatory for Ministers to provide an opportunity for the lodging of objections to the regulations in draft is already implied in the requirement to consult: the Ministers should consider, when deciding on the final form of the regulations, any objections raised to their proposals. Should the regulations, as then drafted, have to be referred again to the interested organisations, the whole process would have to be gone through again, which would take a long time. In practice, we seek to reach agreement on disputed points before making regulations. Certainly the first point which the noble Lord
378
has raised will be covered, and I hope that on that understanding he will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I am grateful to the Minister for his undertaking to try to meet the first point; I see his argument with; regard to the second. The whole of the Committee stage has been conducted in a spirit of such sweet reasonableness that I am only too happy to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CARRINGTON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 6, leave out from (" fish") to ("in") in line 10.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether the Second Schedule, as amended, shall e agreed to?
LORD BURDEN: I wish to give formal notice that on the Report stage I propose to move an Amendment to page 34, to leave out from "fish" in line 10 to "in" in line 14. That Amendment may be slightly affected by the Amendment that has just been carried, but I give formal notice of my Amendment.
LORD S1LKIN: May I just refer to an Amendment which has been passed in relation to this Schedule? I did not wish to challenge it, but I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether he would be good enough to look at it again. It refers to the conditions under which horses are slaughtered in knackers' yards, and provides that the Minister of Food may make regulations. I wonder whether the Minister of Food is the right person to make regulations for this purpose. I do not ask for a reply row. It struck me that, on the face of it, he is hardly the Tight Minister. While I am on my feet may I express to the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, my personal appreciation of the way in which this Committee stage has been conducted, and also the very helpful spirit in which suggestions from all parts of the House have been made. I cannot resist saying to the noble Viscount that last November I asked him whether he would kindly put off the Committee stage for one day. He did not see his way to doing that. To-day is January 20.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: Before the House is resumed, perhaps noble Lards will allow me to thank them for the way in which they have received this Bill, and
380
the very considerable help that the Bill has received in the process of going through the Committee stage.
House resumed.
House adjourned at six minutes before seven o'clock.