HC Deb 17 April 1907 vol 172 cc1056-66

Order for Second Reading read.

THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,), Somersetshire, S.

in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, said he believed he was right in saying that of all the numerous Bills which had been introduced on this subject, only one went before a Standing Committee, and that no Bill had ever got any further than that stage. He hoped that a more fortunate fate awaited this Bill. The present measure differed a good deal from the Bills which had been introduced into the House each year from 1902 to 1905. It was a more far-reaching Bill than any of its predecessors, and, though it went much further, he hoped that it would meet with a better fate. It was founded upon the Report of a Select Committee over which he had presided last session. That Committee sat a great number of times and heard a great deal of evidence, and made a practically unanimous Report to the House. While previous Bills simply dealt with the addition of moisture to butter this Bill went much further. There had been, he regretted to say, a great deal of adulteration and "faking" of butter. In fact the present state of things was so critical that unless something was done very soon to prevent natural butter from being adulterated, the people of this country would have no choice but to eat adulterated or faked butter made either at home or abroad. Some of the evidence given before the Committee was of the most extraordinary nature, showing how it paid to adulterate butter. Mr. Butler, who represented the Wilts United Creamery Company of Devizes, stated that overtures had been made to him offering a process of adulteration which should not be open to detection, but which would increase their present profits by £5,000 a year. Further Mr. Butler said that his company in face of such competition must either themselves fake butter or close their creamery. In a case taken against the Bridgewater Creamery Company only recently, it was admitted that the profits made by adding lardine to butter were £5,650 in fifteen months. Such a state of things proved that there was a very real need for this Bill, which aimed at stopping the adulteration of butter at its source. Previous Bills were aimed at the seller or retailer; this measure went to the source. The innocent retailer was the man who first of all was shot at in previous Bills; he had to prove that he was innocent; he had to prove that it was through no fault of his own that the adulteration had taken place. Even if he did prove his innocence and was able to throw back the blame on the right person, yet he had all the trouble of proving his innocence. It was in the interest of the retailers of the country who were liable to be unjustly accused of adulterating their butter that adulteration should be stopped at its source. The principle of the Bill had been approved of by the producers of butter throughout the country. The Central Chamber of Agriculture had unanimously approved of the principle of the Bill, and he might say that practically the same attitude had been taken up by the Grocers' Federation and the Butter Association, while objecting to some of its provisions. The Nottingham District Association at first strongly objected to the Bill and asked its local Members to oppose it. After the provisions had been explained to the Association, they passed a Resolution rescinding a previous Resolution, and being now content with the Bill as it stood, they had asked their Members to support it. He would explain very shortly the clauses, for there had been a good deal of misunderstanding as to what was the real effect of the Bill. The first clause provided that the existing law as regarded the registration of margarine factories should be applied to butter factory premises for the manufacture of butter substitutes. The second subsection of the clause provided that in the case of imitation butters, or butter substitutes, a register should be kept as to where these were sent to. Sub-section 3, following out a recommendation made by the Select Committee, provided that no premises could be used as a butter factory which formed any part of or communicated with a margarine factory. It had been pointed out to him that in certain cases of creameries in Scotland they would be treated harshly under that particular provision because they might become butter factories. He thought that it might be possible to give exemption to those existing creameries in Scotland, under certain conditions, to be made by the Board of Agriculture on the ground that they had proved a great advantage to the farmers in the neighbourhood who sent their milk to these creameries. It had been represented to him that unless these exemptions were given, the alterations on the premises otherwise required would be so expensive that they would have to be shut up altogether. That proposal of his showed that they did not wish to deal harshly with such creameries. Clause 2, as to the inspection of factories by an officer of the Board of Agriculture was important. The powers of inspection of premises under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act would apply to factories for the manufacture of butter, margarine, margarine cheese, or other imitation butter. Provision was also made that officers duly authorised by the local authority, such as the medical officer, the sanitary inspector, or the inspector of weights and measures, or a police constable, to procure samples under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, might enter the premises used as a butter factory. That was a provision recommended by the Select Committee on the butter trade. No such power was proposed in the case of premises referred to in (b) of Sub-clause(1) of Clause 1, so that there might be no risk of revealing the trade secrets of these places. Sub-section 3 of Clause 2 was the only part of the Bill which applied to creameries and farm houses. That sub-section enabled the Board of Agriculture, where they had reason to suppose that an illegitimate business was being done, to send an officer with special authorisation to inspect the premises in order to see that no fraudulent trade was being carried on there. Clause 3 dealt with another recommendation of the Select Committee. An adulterant was produced by adding a certain amount of acid to milk, by which 8 lbs. of curd were obtained from 100 lbs. of milk at a cost of 7d. per lb. That curd could be used as a cheap adulterant. The object of this clause was to prevent any such curd, or oil, or fat capable of being used as an adulterant being brought into or kept in a butter factory. Clause 4, as indeed nearly all the other clauses in the Bill, was based on the unanimous recommendations of the Select Committee, and dealt with the limit of water permissible in factory butter and margarine, and other butter substitutes. No butter or margarine which contained more than 16 per cent, of water could be sent out of a butter or margarine factory. Valid objection had been taken to the wording of this clause, and it was proposed that it should be altered so as to make it plain that it applied only to the finished article which was packed and ready for consignment. The existing law in regard to farmhouse and creamery butter was not altered, either for Great Britain or Ireland.

MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)

asked if the hon. Gentleman was aware that under the instructions of the Board of Agriculture in Ireland farmers in that country had actually been prosecuted for having in their possession butter containing more than 16 per cent, of water.

*SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

said that those prosecutions must have taken place under regulations made under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1899. It was a complete misapprehension that it was proposed to alter by this Bill the law in regard to farmhouse butter; the Bill as it stood did not alter the law in any respect as to farmhouse or creamery butter. It was only in the case of wilfully increasing the moisture himself that the farmer was liable to a penalty. Clause 8, which dealt with the sale of butter mixtures and imitation butter, was based upon the recommendations of the Select Committee. The sale of these substances, which met the wants and suited the tastes of certain sections of the public, was not prohibited, but precautions were taken that they were not sold under the name of butter. The description and name would have to be approved by the Board. They had no right to refuse permission to traders to deal in an article which was not subject to the objection that it was unwholesome, and the Committee's view was expressed in Paragraph 30 which he would read— Your Committee think it would not be desirable to prohibit the manufacture or sale of the substance known as milk blended butter, as it appears that this substance meets the wants or suits the tastes of a certain section of the community; but they consider that it is not butter; that it and other substances (not being margarine) containing butter fat, should only be allowed to be manufactured for sale under a special name and regulations approved by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries; and that when sold by retail it should be delivered to the purchaser in a wrapper, also approved by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. It would be necessary that factories where this mixture is made, and the premises of wholesale dealers who deal in it, should be registered, and that books should be kept on these factories and premises by which consignments of this mixture could be traced to the retailer. The Government agreed with that view of the Committee, that the public had a right to buy any article if they knew what they were buying and what was its true value, but it should not be sold to them as butter. Therefore precautions were taken in the Bill, in regard to the sale and description of butter substitutes, to prevent them being sold under the name of butter. The description and name would have to be approved by the Board, and it would then be impossible to describe "milk-blended" butter in various forms as butter. The ignorant consumer who knew nothing about percentages, might think the fact of the blending with pure English full-cream milk increased the value as butter. The fact that it contained 24 per cent, of water would convey nothing to his mind. He could assure the House that under the provisions of the Bill no description or name which would lead the public to believe that a butter substitute was genuine butter would be allowed by the Board of Agriculture. Under the proposal of the Bill every man would have to produce his butter substitute and give his description of it and the name would have to be approved by the Board. There was no idea of allowing men who applied to register butter substitutes to place all their articles under the same name and description. Every case would have to be dealt with on its merits, and while the article would not be allowed to be sold as butter he could assure the House that it was not intended that the name should be such as would unfairly prejudice the sale of an article. The object was that the butter substitute should be sold as what it really was and not as butter, and that the farmer should have a right to his own trade mark of "butter" which ought not to be infringed by the sale as butter of a substance which was not the genuine article. Clause 5, dealing with imported butter, increased the maximum penalty in certain cases from £20 for the first offence to a fine of three times the value of the butter. In view of the large consignments imported this was advisable as a consignment might be so large as to make the £20 fine inadequate. The more stringent provisions in regard to imported butter had provoked some criticisms. The presumption would be against the importer in the event of the Government chemist certifying against the butter, and he would have to prove that the butter was not adulterated. In regard to imported butter, that was not unfair, because there was no power of inspection during its manufacture as in the case of English butter. Clause 7 contained a new provision requiring that margarine should be so described in advertisements, and Clause 9 applied the penalties of the Food and Drugs Act to offences under this Act. There would, he hoped, be general agreement on the principle of the Bill to which he asked the House to give a Second Reading in order that it might go to the Standing Committee, where its details could be thoroughly threshed out and discussed. As to those details he did not pretend that the Bill was an inspired document, and he was quite ready to be convinced in regard to any alterations which it might be desirable to make. He could assure the House that the only object of the Government was to put down the gross frauds now being perpetrated in the butter trade. He begged to move.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

had no doubt there would be a majority in favour of the Bill, because it had the practically unanimous recommendation of the Committee; but he took the opportunity of saying there were grave defects in it; for instance, the unnecessary stringent and restrictive clauses in regard to factory butter and the extraordinary provision for 24 per cent., not 16 per cent., of moisture in butter substitutes.

*SIR EDWARD STRACHEY

Not sold as butter.

MR. FLYNN

said the Department of Agriculture took power by regulation to prevent the sale as butter. The Bill was to protect the consumer against fraud, corruption and dishonesty, and against unfair foreign competition; but the provision in respect to milk-blended butter was not drawn in conformity with the recommendation of the Committee, and certainly not with the overwhelming evidence given before the Committee, because with the exception of one or two specious witnesses who tried to prove that this water-logged butter was not so bad after all and that the poor people who bought it were not misled, the evidence was all the other way. In Committee Irish Members would do their best to improve the Bill in that respect. As to margarine, there would not be much difference of opinion. The evidence given of ingenious malpractices showed that, though the advocates of margarine contended that it was wholesome, nutritious, and palatable, yet they wanted to sell it under some other name. The whole idea was to mislead the consumer. Beyond question there was a difference of opinion among Irish Members and farmers as to the percentage of moisture that should be allowed in butter and what was called Irish salt firkin butter. Some of his colleagues were very pertinacious in regard to that subject, but he, as a representative of a butter-producing constituency, asked the Government to stand firm and not to allow the exclusion of any Irish-made butter from the 16 per cent, limit. No friend of the Irish farmer or of the Irish dairy trade would consent to place such a stigma upon Irish butter, which had such a high reputation and character among the butters of the world. All the efforts of modern manufacturers had been in the direction of producing butter with less moisture in it. And every representative of that school of thought who twelve months ago was in favour of 20 per cent. of moisture was now in favour of the smaller percentage of 15 or 16. Only recently Members of the Irish Butter Trade Association had seen the necessity of protecting their butter from unfair competition, and were now prepared to accept 16 per cent, all round.

MR. LUNDON (Limerick, E.)

said he did not intend to take up the valuable time of the House with a lengthy discourse on the Bill, but as one of the Members of the Committee who sat on this question for three months of last year under the Chairmanship of the hon. Baronet the Member for Somerset, who with such patience, such clearheadness, and such ability, discharged his, onerous duties, he might be able to place a few useful facts before the House. The main outlines of the Bill were based on the recommendations of the Committee, and were it not for the speech of the hon. Member for North Cork, he would not have risen on that occasion. Clause 19 of the Committee's recommendations said— In this connection, the exemption of Irish salt firkin butter from the 16 per cent, standard of moisture, frequent references were made by witnesses to the manufacture of salt firkin butter by Trish farmers on hill-side farms. This butter is a special article made with brine. The object of adding brine is to preserve the butter and to give it a flavour which is appreciated by consumers in certain districts. Numerous witnesses expressed the opinion that no special exemption as to salt firkin butter manufactured by Irish farmers is desirable. Your Committee concur in this view. They think that the existing law should be sufficient to prevent the manufacture by farmers in Ireland of salt firkin butter containing an unreasonable or fraudulent amount of moisture, and so far as this kind of butter is concerned they do not recommend any further legislation. The provisions of the Bill as it now stood were not too stringent in dealing with the dangerous and evil practices of those counterfeiting butter. Some of the witnesses examined in Committee gave very sad evidence of the terrible doings resorted to by designing, dishonest traders. The Bill, with some slight modifications, or perhaps changes, to express more clearly the import of some of its provisions, was a very good Bill. The hon. Member for North Cork seemed to think he had a right to speak for Ireland all over, but he represented only the views of the merchants, the go been merchants, of Cork, and the majority of the farmers of his own constituency, if the truth were known, would prefer that both systems, the old one of farmers making the butter in their own dairies, and the new system of the creameries, should run concurrent; and naturally so, as the competition would create higher prices. He (Mr. Lundon) spoke for the farmers of the county Limerick, for those of Clare, Tipperary, and of other counties, who had, through their county councils, their district councils, corporations, and other public bodies, sent, from time to time, resolutions passed unanimously by, in the majority of cases, practical farmers, repudiating the hard and fast line of a 16 per cent, standard of moisture in Irish salt firkin butter. Would the House make a law depriving the honest farmers of the county Clare, in which from Killaloe to Loop Head only two creameries existed, of the right of making their butter in the best way they could so as to meet their requirements and pay their rents? In the county Tipperary, just outside where he lived, from the eastern boundary of his constituency to Toomevara, and from Dundrum to Nenagh, about forty miles either way, in that sixteen hundred square miles of elevated tableau of mountain ranges, some twenty miles away from railways, there were only about a half-dozen creameries, one in Reigh, one in Kilcommon, one in Hollyford, and one near Upperchurch or Glastragan, with one or two others farther east. If this 16 per cent, standard was to be adopted according to the great genius of the hon. Member for North Cork, what became of the brave and industrious men of north and mid Tipperary? It was the butter merchants of Cork who first attempted the ruin of the Irish butter trade. Some years ago they shipped first-class Irish butter to Denmark, and under a Copenhagen brand transhipped it to London, placing it on the counters in the latter place as Danish butter, and exposing alongside it third class Irish butter in firkins with a first-class brand: thus, by a mean trade dodge, ruining the reputation of a splendid article so as to make money by a fraudulent transaction. This thing soon came to an end, but they next resorted to the bringing over to Cork of Copenhagen firkins, which in turn went down, and the third move resulted in branding in the stores the Cork made firkins as Copenhagen, and sending them down even to county Limerick with money in advance to secure the trade in that county in opposition to the butter-buyers of Limerick and Tipperary. So much for the magnanimity of the Cork butter merchants, now so strenuously championed by the hon. Member for North Cork. The real meaning of this advocacy of the 16 per cent, standard was that, if it should become law, the farmers of the south and west of Ireland, not having modern appliances to ensure their being capable of bringing their butter below the legal requirement, would be driven to the alternative of selling their commodity in the lump butter markets. The unsalted butter being a perishable article would, on occasions, be bought by the agents from Cork at perhaps 25 per cent, below its value, and thence taken to the Cork factories, would be rehashed up and exported to London when butter might be in demand, but at slack times cold stored without any date on the labels and sent out, only to meet the high prices when the quality might have deteriorated. So much for the paternal care of a splendid Irish product on the part of the Cork merchants and their worthy representative in that House. So persistently did they hold out that Cork was everything that their conduct would aptly fit in with the rhyme— Cork above and Cork below, Cork so high and Cork so low; Cork so tender and Cork so tough, Of Cork, God knows, we have got enough. The solicitude of the Cork men over the character of Irish butter was mainly in their breeches pocket. He hoped that the hon. Baronet, with some slight but necessary alterations in the Bill, would succeed in stopping the flood of villainy being practiced under the mixing of margarine, milk-blended butter, and other counterfeits, to the detriment of the pure and genuine article.

And, it being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, Further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.