IMPORTED FOODSTUFFS (MARKING). (Hansard, 28 June 1932)

§ Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the marking of all imported foodstuffs with an indication as to whether of Empire or foreign production and of the country of origin; and to provide for matters incidental thereto. The Bill which I am asking leave to introduce proposes that the marking of these foodstuffs shall be on importation and on sale or exposure for sale, whether wholesale or retail. The marking will be placed on the article itself or on its container, or will be carried out in some other way effective for the purpose. The marking, also, will consist of two different designations—first, as to whether the article is of Empire or foreign production; and, secondly, as to its country of origin. The nature and manner of the marking will be laid down by Order in 1640 Council on the recommendation of the appropriate Department, and the laying of such Orders before Parliament will follow the procedure of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926.

I do not think I need make any apology to the House for bringing the principle of this Bill before it. In my view it is long overdue. England's unsheltered food markets has been for too long the Mecca of the exporting countries of the world. It is the most valuable food market in the world. In this country we ourselves have been taught to take our food on trust, very often regardless of its origin, sometimes regardless of its worth and quality. I think it is high time that we knew more about what we are buying and whence it comes. We have in this country a "Buy British" campaign, but how is the householder or the housewife to know, when, either in the butcher's shop or in the grocer's shop, they see beef on the slab or bacon on the counter, whether that article is of home or Empire or foreign production? This Bill will make a reality of the "Buy British" campaign by enabling the buyer to know what he or she is buying.

It is true that under the Merchandise Marks Act a few Orders relating to foodstuffs have been made, but they are few indeed. Why are they so few? For the reason that, before the British buyer may be allowed to know where the foodstuff in question comes from, some harassed home industry has had to pass through the inquisition of an inquiry in making its application for an Order, and that has been an expensive business. The application has been resisted by organisations of distributors and other powerful interests. I am credibly informed that the promoters of the application for the recent Butter Marking Order, which was subsequently granted, were involved in a cost of over £2,000. I think that that is monstrous. Indeed, every obstacle seems to have been placed in the way of granting an Order under that Act. This Bill will sweep all that away. I submit to the House that it is time that we put the boot on the other leg. Let the importer tell us where the imported article comes from; let us proceed on the principle that everything imported in the way of foodstuffs should in future be marked.

Under the Bill it will be open to the home producer to mark his pro- 1641 duce or not, as ho thinks best. He can, if he wishes, take advantage of the National Mark, or any other mark. But, after all, this market is his home market, and it ought to be his own market as well. Surely no one would deny him the right to this option in his own market. But the National Mark costs British money. Why should not other countries take the trouble to mark their goods, if they desire to enjoy the benefits and privileges of our home market? We have an Empire Marketing Board, which costs British money too. I submit that the "Buy British" campaign has lost much of its value, and that the National Mark scheme and the activities of the Empire. Marketing Board have not given us full value for the money that they have cost, for one reason, and one reason only. That is that we have neglected to have a general Food Marking Order. We have omitted the pre-requisite to the success of this movement; in fact, we have started at the wrong end.

I think that at this moment it is singularly appropriate that the British House of Commons should affirm this principle. Ottawa is near upon us; our representatives will shortly be leaving these shores; and I would like to see our representatives take with them to Ottawa this happy gesture. I would like them to remind the Dominions that the competition which they have to meet in our home food market is not merely that of the home producer, but still more that of the foreign producer. I would like our representatives, before they commence discussion with a view to mutual advantage—and I hope that these two words will be the text of all the discussions at Ottawa—to tell the Dominions quite clearly that, although we expect and look forward to a greatly increased expansion of our home production of foodstuffs, yet there will still be a wide field open to them in which they will be able to enjoy preferences. In the second place, I would like our representatives to tell them that, in order to make these preferences fully effective, we intend in future that Empire foodstuffs shall be completely distinguishable from foreign foodstuffs. This in itself will constitute a valuable preference to Empire producers.

I believe that Empire countries will welcome this gesture, and, indeed, who can rightly object? Foreign countries certainly can have no cause for com- 1642 plaint; Empire countries can have nothing to lose, but everything to gain; the homo farmer will have nothing to fear; the home buyer will have nothing to fear; the honest trader will have nothing to fear; while the dishonest trader, if such there be, will be found out. Let us know in future what it is that we are buying. If we can afford, which few of us can, to buy the best cut of so-called home-fed British beef, let us make quite sure that that joint comes from an animal which is British born and fed, which has lived and died a British animal, and is not one that has spent its life browsing on the breezy plains oil the Argentine. Or, again, to go to the other extreme, if we want to buy a tin of condensed skimmed milk labelled "Unfit for Babies," let it still be open to the British producer to produce a tin of British-made skimmed milk that is fit for British babies.

I have heard the argument advanced that such marking might prove to be a disadvantage to the home producer. I scorn that argument. I believe it to be true that British producers are capable of placing their products alongside the products of any other country in the world, and of competing fairly with them. If that be not the case in respect of any particular article, then I would say that the sooner that state of affairs is remedied the better, and this Bill will stimulate the process. I submit that our farmer in many respects has not had a fair chance. His home market has been largely denied to him because the prices ruling in that home market have had no relation whatever to his own home costs of production. No other country having a food market of any value has permitted that market to be exploited in the way that we have in this country. Agriculture is the industry of all our industries at this moment which can make the biggest contribution to the rectification of our adverse trade balance. We must remember that, when we get that increased expansion, we shall not be doing it for export, but that it will be for the home market—that the home buyer must buy more British foodstuffs, and that we must tell him which is which. We know that we are cumbered with many international commitments and commercial treaties. These are often urged as an excuse for inaction in regard to doing anything to help agricul- 1643 ture. Here is an opportunity to do something which conies into no conflict with any of these treaties. We can help the Empire and ourselves in one. We have a National Government supported by a National House of Commons elected by the national will. Let us do something that is both national and Imperial at one and the same time.