HC Deb 13 December 1926 vol 200 cc2694-701

Articles required to be sold by net weight, except where weighed for sale in a wrapper or container, and the weight of the wrapper or container does not exceed four and a-half drains per pound of the article sold.

Flour of wheat, rye, maize, pea, or bean, including self-raising flour and cake flour.

The only Amendment I am going to propose to the new Schedule is a pure drafting Amendment to bring it into line with the provisions as regards paper which the Committee has already passed.

Sir D. NEWTON

Are the lines to be read across the page or vertically?

The CHAIRMAN

As they are printed.

Mr. BARNES

I should like to express our regret that the President finds it necessary to modify the Schedule. There are no reasons at all why cereals should not be added to the list, and though I do not propose to divide I think it necessary to make it clear that there are no practical difficulties in the way. I have quite a number of labels here covering cereals and other commodities which are already being supplied to a very large section of the trade. It appears regrettable, in view of the fact that there is a very large measure of opinion in favour of the Bill, that the President has not seen his way to adhere to the main lines on which it was introduced. I hope at an early date he will see his way clear to restore the articles he now proposes to omit.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Mr. WOMERSLEY

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out lines 2 to 6, inclusive.

That will mean that coffee beans, ground coffee, cocoa, cocoa powder and chocolate powder will come out of Part I, and later on you will see an Amendment in my name to add these articles to Part III. That is a part where a certain weight of paper is allowed when the goods are handed over to the customer. The reason for the Amendment is that some of these articles are of a very pungent nature, and would contaminate the scales for the weighing of other goods: and others are of such a nature that they will adhere to the scales and make it very difficult to deal with the weighing of those goods, particularly in a busy shop. During the last few weeks, demonstrations have been given throughout the country to various Members of this House as to how this Act would operate if it had been brought into force in the form in which it was drafted. I think it was clearly demonstrated how great are the difficulties the retailer would have in weighing those goods without the paper. Evidently, the President of the Board of Trade has been convinced that the argument was a sound one. The intention of those who are actively engaged in this trade is to show that the articles mentioned here are among the most difficult to handle without paper. It might be argued that you could use counterfoils, but again we have the automatic scales so much in use, and therefore we could not use another piece of paper.

The CHAIRMAN

There is a certain discrepancy between the Blue Paper and the White Paper which was circulated this morning. In order that there may be no mistake, I will put the Question in the way in which the hon. Members can follow it. The Amendment is to leave out coffee beans, ground coffee (including chicory mixtures), cocoa, cocoa powder and chocolate powder. The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I could not possibly invite the Committee to accept this Amendment. There are many reasons against accepting it. First, there is the chain of authority. My hon. Friend (Mr. Womersley) has on several occasions referred to the value of the Select Committee of this House which sat in 1914, and indicated that that was an authority which, if there was a difference of opinion, we should follow rather than the Food Council. But in 1914 that Select Committee recommended that it be illegal to sell tea, coffee or cocoa in powder in retail by any other system than net weight These articles are much snore expensive than sugar and so on, where a special allowance has been given. They are plainly not on the same footing as tea, coffee and cocoa are. Tea has already by Statute to be sold by net weight, and in regard to coffee there are special provisions in force requiring it to be much more carefully Weighed than general groceries. For instance, in tea, coffee and tobacco, the margin of error laid down is three drams, whereas in general groceries it 30 drams. But my hon. Friend has misconceived the effect of the Schedule. It does not forbid people to weigh things into bags. It does not stop the shopkeeper from putting a bag on the scales and pouring the coffee into it, but all he has to do is to deliver net weight. If he sells 16 ounces of coffee as a pound. and I ounce of bag, we can say nothing to him. He is all right so long as he does not sell 15 ounces of coffee and I ounce of bag. I submit for all these reasons that I cannot reasonably be expected to make any variation on the Schedule.

Amendment to proposed negatived.

Sir CYRIL COBB

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 17, at the end, to insert the words Jam. Marmalade. The object of this Amendment is to try to get a declaration of the Government's policy as to jam and marmalade. There are thousands of shops which are constantly selling large quantities of jam and marmalade, particularly jam. It is rare indeed that the customer gets full weight. In London the custom is, in the poorest shops, for the customer to bring his own container, and to have the jam ladled into it. The other custom is for people to buy jam in 1, 2, 3, 4 or 7 lbs. in jars or glasses. I understand from all the evidence that I can obtain, that the customer who brings his own container gets better weight than those who buy in pots and jars. I have taken some trouble to lock into the question of pots and jars, and I find it is very seldom that you get in a pot or jar the full quantity of jam or marmalade. It is always a few ounces short. I have found that the difference in the 1-lb. jar is 2 ounces, and in the 4-lb. jar as much as 8 ounces, between what the pot will hold when it is full and the actual weight which ought to be in the pot.

There ought to be in these pots, 2 lbs., 3 lbs. or 4 lbs. of jam or marmalade as the case may be. The Government ought to have some policy in regard to the question of the selling of jam or marmalade over the counter. I do not know whether, in view of the fact that manufacturers of jam and marmalade mark their pots or their jars at the bottom with their names, it would be possible, without causing them any great trouble, to mark each side of the rim of the pot with a line at which, say, the 1 lb. of jam or marmalade would arrive, if the pot is to be full. That is one suggestion. There are three ways of dealing with this matter. The Government may say that they will have nothing to do with the suggestion, and that they will not put jam and marmalade into the Schedule. They may say that jam or marmalade is not sold net weight and, consequently, the customer will never get his full pound of jam or marmalade. Or they may say they will put off the matter, and endeavour later to bring jam and marmalade into the Schedule. That is to say, that they will grant a moratorium to the sellers of jam and marmalade until such time as the Government have in mind methods for seeing that the customer gets full weight. It would be a great pity if we did nothing in regard to this very important article of food, particularly in the poorer parts of our great towns.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

The hon. Member has asked for a pronouncement of Government policy. I am all in favour of the "Eat more British jam" campaign, but I am not prepared at the present stage to put jam or marmalade into this Bill. It is true that the Food Council made a recommendation, but that recommendation was made on evidence which turned out afterwards to be incomplete. It was made on evidence which was not accurate. A more exact examination, when competitors of a particular firm challenged the evidence, showed that each pot of jam was not complete in itself, but on the average over a a number, the pots of jam gave an aggregate which, divided up, constituted an equal average. I admit that that is not net weight. It is possible by a very complicated machine to fill jam pots with absolutely accurate net weight. Those who are able to instal a costly and complicated machine of that kind would, no doubt, meet their reward, but the Committee will agree that at this stage it would be unjust when there are large jam makers and small jam makers to impose a provision which would compel everybody to instal a very costly machine or else go out of business. Therefore, I am not sufficiently satisfied that jam can be adequately included in this Bill.

Mr. BARNES

I should like to support the Amendment, but if any item is put into the Bill it should be within reasonable opportunity for traders to carry it out. I am afraid that in the case of jam even a fair trader is in a difficulty. Jam is made of different densities. You may have a container of average size where the jam is made of whole fruit and thick syrup, where you would get a full pound, but if it is made of thin syrup it might be under weight.

Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.

Mr. BARNES

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 17, at the end, to insert the words: Pressed beef or any meat so treated as to be fit for human consumption without further preparation or cooking (other than potted meats). The same difficulty cannot be levelled against pressed beef as was levelled against jam and marmalade. By including ham the President of the Board of Trade has admitted that cooked meats come into this category, but if the right hon. Gentleman will indicate that in his opinion we should try our hand first and will later include pressed beef by Regulation in this category, it will affect our decision.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I will, of course, keep a sympathetic mind if at any future time it is proposed to include pressed beef. The Committee have already agreed unanimously that we ought not to add or take anything away from the Schedule until there has been an opportunity of consulting all interests, including the Food Council and the Association of Local Authorities. There was no recommendation from the Food Council about pressed beef. They say specifically that they think we should do much better to confine ourselves to certain items which they recommend instead of putting in a general provision about net weight and then granting exceptions to it. They made no recommendations about sausages, lentils, pearl barley, mustard, pepper, macaroni and vermicelli, and we should, therefore, be inconsistent with the decision we have already taken if, without consideration, we added these items to our list.

Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.

Mr. T. HENDERSON

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 17, at the end, to insert the word "sausages."

I want to make a special appeal to the President of the Board of Trade on behalf of this interesting and common article of food. The right hon. Gentleman may have some difficulty in placing this article in its proper category in the Bill. It might be argued that it should have been placed with the bread class, because it may be said that many sausages, and much of a sausage, is bread. It may also be argued that it should be put in the fruit class, because in some cases it may be said that sausages contain certain kinds of fruit. Then there are other advocates who might say that it should be entered in the class which deals with certain liquids, because a sausage, they say, is liable to evaporation. There are a great many brands of sausages on the market, and when they are handed over to the customer they are wrapped up in well-decorated paper in one-pound or half-pound packets. Any hon. Member, if he so desires, can see them nicely decorated with red and blue ribbons, I suppose to correspond with the ribbons which were round the animal's neck when it was alive. That may or may not be the case. But this is a common article of food in which there is more exploitation of the people than in almost any other food of which I know.

Mr. SANDEMAN

Are haggis and black puddings included under this heading?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I am not called upon to give a ruling on that point, because I hope that the Committee will exclude the sausage. The Food Council did consider the sausage and came to the conclusion that it ought not to recommend the sausage for this special treatment. I understand that the sausage is not only not properly butcher's meat, for the reason that it contains a large proportion of bread, but that while it is still quite edible it undergoes a very considerable process of evaporation and that that fact would make the Bill difficult to administer. All the considerations that the hon. Member has advance d were considered by the Food Council.

Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.

Mr. BARNES

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 17, at the end, to insert the words "lentils, pearl barley, mustard, pepper, macaroni, vermicelli."

The arguments of the Minister with regard to sausage meat and jams and marmalade cannot apply to these items. To prove my contention I exhibit here labels both of pepper and mustard.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

Would the hon. Member send me a complete set?

Mr. BARNES

Yes, and the tinned stuff as well. These articles are already being extensively sold by being put into tins. The President of the Board of Trade might well extend his list to include them.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the proposal. The Food Council definitely recommended limitation, as regards the net weight provision, to the articles already included in the Schedule. We might find many articles which are sold by net weight. We are making great leaps, and it would be very unwise, without full evidence before us, to add a number of articles to the list, for by doing so we might well make mistakes and undo a great deal of the good that we are doing.

Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 21, to leave out the words "four and a-half drams," and to insert instead thereof the words "the specified number of drams."

This is a drafting Amendment consequential on the variation that we made in the paper provisions.

Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Back to