The Press TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1967. Milk Processing

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31520, 7 November 1967, Page 16

The Press TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1967. Milk Processing

The middle-aged Christchurch housewife can recall the days when milk was delivered by horse and cart, often straight from the farm. The housewife left her billy at the gate, and fresh milk was poured into the billy with a dipper from a five-gallon can. Many regret the passing of that era: but on medical and scientific grounds—as opposed to sentimental grounds—there is no alternative in large cities to supplying pasteurised milk to consumers. The possibilities of contamination of fresh milk are too numerous, the consequences too widespread, to contemplate. But pasteurisation—and the mechanisation, bottling, and handling which this entails—is expensive. Just how expensive it is is demonstrated by the investment of §2 million in a milk treatment station in Christchurch. The new station will process milk not only for Immediate consumption as liquid town milk, but also for consumption in other forms such as milk powder, cottage cheese, and yoghurt. At present Canterbury Dairy Farmers, Ltd, the co-operative organisation of town milk supply producers, makes these products at its Kaiapoi factory just north of the Waimakariri River. The new station is much more, however, than a rationalisation of the present undertaking; it provides for expansion of the town milk industry in Christchurch and for continued growth of its byproducts. It will be able to switch from bottled milk to cartoned milk if disposable containers—at present too expensive to compete with returnable bottles—are ever required for town milk supply here. The consolidation of the pasteurisation and drying processes on one site would also facilitate a transition from year-round milking to summer milking and reconstitution of dried milk for winter supply if that became necessary or desirable. The town milk supply industry will be well equipped, by 1969, to cope with future changes in demand for any of its products in their various forms. The huge capital investment required was approved, presumably, only after careful calculation of the risks involved for the shareholders in both Canterbury Dairy Farmers, Ltd, and the Christchurch Milk Company, the joint owners of the present treatment house. Philanthropic motives scarcely enter into such decisions, except to the extent that far-sighted directors will always give the continued goodwill of the consuming public priority over shortterm profits. The most sophisticated processing plant can do no more than preserve the qualities of the raw milk fed into it. Any town milk producer supplying contaminated or under-grade milk to a treating house prejudices the good name of the treating house, eroding the value of the investment of his fellowsuppliers: and the bigger the investment the more reprehensible his neglect. Examining the new “ complex ” their directors have planned, local dairy farmers may feel they are no more than cogs in a machine; the older ones may even wish for the days when they delivered their own milk and met their customers face to face. But those days are gone, and today’s town milk supplier is a shareholder—at one remove—in a modern food factory and a supplier of that indispensable commodity, high-grade raw materials. The House of Lords Reducing the number of peers who may sit in the House of Lords, as proposed by the British Government, would not necessarily reduce the effective size of the chamber. What is more, the proposed increase in the number of Labour peers, all of whom could be expected to be active members, would add to the stature of Britain’s Upper House. So much for Labour Party threats over the years to abolish this traditional stronghold of Conservatism or to curtail its powers. No-one can doubt that the threats would have been carried out if the Lords had not, even while irking the Labour Government and Party, proved its value as an instrument of government

Only a small minority of hereditary peers contribute anything to the work of the chamber; most of the peers who regularly attend its sittings are either life peers or men with hereditary peerages of recent creation. The regular attenders number fewer than 100, and even when important and controversial legislation is being debated the attendance rarely exceeds that number. The peers who exercise their right to appear in the House of Lords are almost exclusively men with previous political experience either in the House of Commons or in local politics. The “ active ” peers who have not served in the Commons are usually men who succeeded to titles before they had a chance to be elected to Parliament

In federal parliaments, such as the Congress of the United States, upper houses tend to have a high status, especially when members are elected to represent constituent states which obtain representation disproportionate to their populations. In unitary States upper houses tend to carry less authority in the estimation of citizens. The longer terms accorded to upper houses—in Britain the term has hitherto been unlimited and the membership largely self-renewing—are calculated to smooth out the more frequent and, at times, radical changes in the policies approved in the lower houses. In recent years the House of Lords has not used its full powers to delay legislation approved in the Commons. Even during the term of the Attlee Government, which enacted sweeping political changes, the House of Lords, notwithstanding its overwhelming Conservative majority, co-operated with rather than opposed the Government. The amendments it offered for the Government’s consideration are acknowledged to have improved many hastily-drafted bills. Only when it feared that the Lords would delay the nationalisation of the iron and steel industries beyond its term in office did the Government move to curtail the Lords’ power of delay. That power to delay legislation may now be reduced further.

Clearly it is Mr Wilson’s intention that full use should be made of the peculiar advantages of the House of Lords as a legislative machine. The well-qualified peers should employ their knowledge and experience to consider legislation in a calmer and more judicial atmosphere than usually prevails under the intense political pressure and party discipline of the Commons. The creation of more Labour peers to balance the house politically should detract seriously from this advantage. Mr Wiison may be considering a plan to limit the term of membership and to encourage the appointment of younger peers, for the abolition of hereditary membership would immediately reduce the number of younger men in the House. The House of Lords cannot be allowed to become a rival of the House of Commons; but it should be possible to retain and improve the most valuable features of the House by confirming in law what has already become established by practice.