Schedule 4.—(F000s.) (Hansard, 13 March 1963)

§ Mr. Speaker
The next Amendment is in page 72, line 17.

§ Mr. Darling
On a point of order. I do not want to challenge your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, or make any suggestion that would involve asking why our Amendment has not been selected in page 72, line 12, at end insert: 3. Except when sold as a constituent of a mixture of two or more liquids beer shall be sold by retail only—

(a) if prepacked, in a container marked with an indication of the original gravity of the contents; or

(b) if not prepacked and sold for consumption on the promises at which it is sold, if there is displayed on those premises, in such a position and manner as to he readily available without special request by the buyer before sale, a statement in writing showing the original gravity thereof.
Original gravity" has the same meaning for the purpose of this Act as it has for the purposes of the Customs and Excise Act 1952. I wonder, however, whether I might make a submission so that if the matter is raised in another place it could be suggested that the general reason for not discussing this kind of matter in the Bill is that the Bill dealt with weights and not qualities, although we could argue that the Amendment deals with weights and not qualities. Beer, which is the subject of the Amendment, consists of, we hope, pure water to begin with, to which is added malt, hops and sugar—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. No doubt, if an Amendment were offered in another place, the authorities there would have to consider whether it was within order as being within the scope of the Bill. I quite understand that some problems of quantity may be rightly related to quality, in the sense that when considering medicine it is possible to measure all the ingredients which it contains, but that would be a poor test for the fragrance of flowers or the bouquet of a wine. The Amendment is out of order.

§ Mr. Denzil Freeth
I beg to move, in page 72, line 17, after "quantities" insert: which shall be the same for all those liquors". Perhaps we might discuss at the same time, Mr. Speaker, the consequential Amendment in line 22, leave out from second "in" to "offered" in line 24, and insert: which of those quantities those liquors are

§ Mr. Speaker
If the House so agrees.

§ Mr. Freeth
These two Amendments deal with a point raised in Standing Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South (Mr. H. Steward), who referred at column 661 to the fact that paragraph 242 of the Hodgson Report suggested that there should be one measure only for spirits, but the Bill appears to permit a publican to serve gin in one-fifth of a gill, whisky in one-fourth of a gill and vodka in one-sixth of a gill.
My hon. Friend suggested that this might lead to confusion at best on Saturday nights and to fraud at worst. I agreed to consider the point, and my hon. Friend and I have now done so. We accept that to allow different measures for different spirits on the same premises, as the Bill at present allows, might well cause confusion and mistakes and even fraud. Therefore, we suggest these Amendments to the House which would have the effect of ensuring that there would be the same measure for each of the spirits in any one licensed premises.
I would say in passing that we looked at the possibility of permitting the publican to use a different measure for all spirits, provided that the same measure was used for all spirits in one bar, and that the different bars within the same public house had the choice of using different measures. I think that on reflection hon. Members will see that this was not a happy halfway house. Therefore. I commend these Amendments to the House.

§ Mr. Darling
The reason why the Parliamentary Secretary is in trouble over the business of having too many measures for spirits in the same public house is that we have too many measures for spirits throughout the country. I would have preferred the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the proposition which we have put forward, which is far more logical and sensible, of having one measure for spirits throughout the United Kingdom. Whether it should be a quarter of a gill or a fifth of a gill is a matter for discussion, but it certainly ought not to be one-sixth of a gill in Southern England.
I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary is taking this course of dealing with a very real problem, because the best solution is, as I said, to have one 1471 measure for spirits throughout the country. At any rate, he has come some way to get rid of a difficulty which has arisen because of the stupid way this part of the Bill is worded.

§ Mr. Harold Steward (Stockport, South)
I intervene only to thank my hon. Friend for the half loaf that he has offered us. It is, at all events, part of what we asked for. It is perfectly true that this was within the context of a broader submission which was made. While I still feel that it would have been better, as has been said, to have a standard measure for the whole country, I nevertheless express my gratitude for this half loaf.

§ Mr. Goodhew
I beg to move, in page 72, line 30, after "it" to insert "either".

§ Mr. Speaker
I believe that it would be for a convenience of the House to discuss with this Amendment the next one in the name of the hon. Gentleman, in page 72, line 31, leave out "three or more liquids" and insert: two or more alcoholic liquids other than bitters", and perhaps also the next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member, in line 31, after "liquids" to insert: or,the buyer expressly demands a mixture containing a different quantity", which is not selected, but I should be prepared, if it were desired, to permit discussion to extend over it also.

§ Mr. Denzil Freeth
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order that we may be clear, as I am afraid I am not at the moment, do I understand that you are calling the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) has moved and only his first Amendment to line 31 and that it would not be possible, should the Government so desire, to accept his second Amendment to line 31?

§ Mr. Speaker
I am sorry if I did not state the proposition aright. I 1472 took it that the first two Amendments clearly went together, and if I was wrong about that I will select them severally for the purpose of whatever course is desired.

§ Mr. Goodhew
I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. I think I am right in saying that the third Amendment follows the first and that the second is an alternative to the other two. They dwell on the same subject. I should tell the House that I have an interest in establishments which sell gin, cocktails and other drinks and that I am glad to number hon. Members among my customers.
The Government have tried to frame this Bill so as to enable people to have the drink to which they are accustomed —that is to say, to be able to buy if they wish a cocktail without having to have a full measure of gin in it. As the House will realise, if one has a mixture of three or more liquids it makes it a very large drink instead of perhaps the small aperitif which is desired.
For instance, there is the difficulty of the person who does not wish to have a cocktail mixed with ice, and therefore, as we discovered in Standing Committee, may want to include water as a constituent part. Then there is the person who wants a gin and French or a gin and Dubonnet consisting principally of French or Dubonnet. I am sure there are hon. Gentlemen who have taken members of the fair sex out to dine who have asked for a gin and Dubonnet and have said "Only a little gin".

§ Mr. Loughlin
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Goodhew
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) either gives the fair sex all the gin they can take or does not take them out at all.
This is important from the point of view of being able to supply people with what they want. Someone told me at lunch today that whenever they had a gin and Italian they liked two-thirds Italian and one-third gin. A full measure of gin in this drink would make it enormous.
In view of the need to enable restaurateurs and bar keepers to supply the public with what they want, I hope that 1473 my hon. Friend will be able to accept either the first and third of these Amendments together or the second one, for this would enable the public to buy a mixture of two drinks without having to have a full measure of gin. It would not prevent someone from having a complete measure of gin in a gin and tonic or a complete measure of whisky in a whisky and soda, but it would enable those who want two alcoholic liquors in a drink to have a smaller drink than would otherwise be the case.

§ Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)
I support this Amendment, although I come from a city more closely associated not with teetotallers but with those who drink sherry and wine and other unadulterated things. But I know from my limited experience of places of public entertainment and public drinking that a grave injustice would be done if we passed this Bill without making this Amendment. People who like messy things like cocktails should be allowed to enjoy them in peace.

§ Mr. Denzil Freeth
We had quite a discussion in Standing Committee on the subject of those who wish to purchase a mixture of two liquids but do not wish to have a full measure of one of the four spirits mentioned in Part VI of the Fourth Schedule. Looking back at what I said then, I think that I was a little harsh to the young lady who likes to drink a Dubonnet with a dash of gin and also perhaps, to the young lady who likes to drink her Italian or French with just a dash of gin—a dash, I presume, being very much smaller even than a sixth of a gill. The case equally applies, of course, to vodka.
9.30 p.m.
There is the difficulty of enforcement if I were to meet my hon. Friends' case. The House must face the difficulty before making up its mind about the Amendment. The question is whether, if one so stipulates, a buyer of a drink demanding expressly to have only a dash of gin, instead of a legal measure of gin, thereby offers a loophole to the unscrupulous seller to evade the specified quantity requirements of the Schedule. The fact that the seller could give less than the full measure when less than the full measure was expressly demanded could open the door to abuse. For example, the barman might persuade his customer 1474 to order a "special" mixed drink which contained less than the full mixture of spirit and which was not a cocktail within the meaning of the wording of the Schedule, which states that it must be a mixture of three or more liquids.
It is possible to suggest that this might happen and not easily be detectable or provable by the inspector. On the other hand, I am conscious of the fact that the aim of the Bill is to benefit both the consumer and the trader and to provide the consumer with that maximum amount of freedom which the consumer should have, together with the maximum amount of protection which the consumer should have. It is possibly rather harsh to demand that the consumer, or rather the purchaser, who in many cases is not the consumer, should have to buy more gin than he wishes to pay for, or than the consumer wishes to consume.
Therefore, if the sense of the House is that this is a reasonable Amendment, namely, that a person who expressly says that he wishes to have one liquid with only a dash of gin in it and not a full measure of gin, should be able to do so, I would certainly not wish to stand in its way in accepting the Amendment and the consequential Amendment. Upon reflection, I think that it is possible to make too much of the dangers of confusion or fraud and that the situation which we would like to see is that outlined by my hon. Friend.
Unfortunately, however, the actual wording of my hon. Friend's Amendment is not acceptable as it stands, and it would certainly be necessary to make a consequential change to paragraph 3 (b) about the notice in the pub or hotel, informing the customer which measure is being used for the spirits in question. But if it is the "spirit" of the House that we should move forward along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, I will see that an Amendment is moved in another place.

§ Mr. Darling
There are two reasons why I personally—and I speak only for myself—welcome this approach. The first is on the ground of sobriety. The Amendment is desirable because if a person asking for a Martini had to get the full strength of gin we would have far more people laid out in an unsober state than we have now.
1475 On enforcement I should say that as a general rule the pub which practises fraud in the measures and which is caught, if the inspector catches it, is likely to be the pub which would practise fraud in this kind of proposition. I would have thought that in this kind of business the legal protection was all that was required for enforcement. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary is taking this line.

§ Mr. Colin Turner (Woolwich, West)
I support the principle of these Amendments. It is not only the young lady referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) who may require a dash of gin. The connoisseur of cocktails is particular about the quantities that go into his cocktail, and I am certain that if he does not get what he requires he is capable of protecting his interests and seeing that the cocktail is to the quantity and consistency he wants. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the principle of these Amendments.

§ Mr. Goodhew
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having accepted the aim of the Amendment, and for the reception it has had from the House. In view of my hon. Friend's undertaking to introduce his own Amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw mine.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am not sure whether covering the ground is the right expression, but to ensure that I do not get these matters confused I propose to select the other two Amendments and see what happens. Does the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) desire to move the Amendments in page 72, line 31?

§ Mr. Goodhew
No, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am obliged to the hon. Member.

§ Mr. Cyril Bence (Dunbartonshire, East)
I beg to move, in page 72, line 38, to leave out "five" and to insert "three".
Having listened to the discussion on the previous Amendment, I, too, have an interest to declare. I move this Amendment with some trepidation, because all 1476 my life I have been a member of a temperance movement, and I still am an active temperance advocate.
All this talk about mixing drinks is a foreign language to me. Nevertheless, I suppose that hon. Gentlemen opposite enjoy the pleasure of these dashes and bitters, or whatever they are called. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that these miniatures of pre-packed liquids, these things about which we have been talking, are clearly marked if they contain four fluid ounces or five fluid ounces.
There is no difficulty about pre-packing three ounces in a miniature bottle, and I see no reason why a bottle containing this quantity should be marked, but I do not think that bottles containing four and five fluid ounces should be exempt from this provision. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept this Amendment which deals with a matter about which I know very little, but I think that five ounces is too large a quantity to exempt.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Hirst (Shipley)
I also have an interest to declare, although, as those hon. Members who served on the Committee which considered the Licensing Bill will know, it is slightly different from that of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). I admit to being connected with the brewing industry. I apologise to the House for not having served on this exciting Committee about which we have heard tonight, but 60 hours on the earlier occasion required more than a miniature to sustain me before I could serve on this Committee.
I gather that the Minister was under some slight obligation, as a result of the deliberations in Committee, to meet views which are not very dissimilar from those expressed by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East. I am not going to make a great case about this, because I believe that this is not so much a case of exact but rather maximum and minimum quantities, but I am sure my hon. Friend will realise that this is a rather unusual trade. All sorts of peculiar little fancy bottles are used for the purpose and I doubt whether any manufacturer would maintain that he could produce two bottles which would contain the same amount of liquor.
One accepts the fact that the strict measurements usually applied to the 1477 amount of liquid contained in a bottle cannot be applied to these kinds of bottles. The hon. Member is anxious to set a limit on what would, presumably, be an undesirable practice. I do not think that such a practice is extensive because, on the whole, the trade is pretty honest in this matter, as it is over licensing matters generally. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that this is not a case where the liquid contained in the bottles may be measured drop by drop, and it would be impracticable to use machinery. Generally, I do not think that there would be any objection to the Amendment although I know that some people have fears about the matter.

§ Mr. Denzil Freeth
During the Committee stage discussions we debated whether five fluid ounces was the right limit above which it would be necessary for the contents of a bottle to be in a marked and accurately sized container. The Committee accepted the proposition that it was impossible to measure the contents of a miniature bottle accurately. But five fluid ounces is very near the size of the smallest bottle of whisky which it is possible to buy—the quarter bottle. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) was concerned that some people might make a miniature container holding four or four-and-three-quarter fluid ounces, composed of very thick glass, which would appear to be the same size as a quarter bottle of spirits. The hon. Gentleman considered—I think rightly—that this would be an undesirable practice which should not be countenanced.
I am advised that no miniature bottles are made which contain between three and five fluid ounces. Because of that, and in order to avoid the possibility of fraud to which the hon. Member for Hillsborough referred, I gave an undertaking during the Committee stage that if the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) put down an Amendment to substitute three fluid ounces for five the Government would look with favour upon it. The hon. Gentleman has so done, the Government so do and I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. Bence
Speaking as a temperance advocate, I hope that I may be permitted to express my thanks to the Parliamentary Secretary for enabling me to enjoy 1478 what I think must be a unique experience for a teetotaller, in being able to move such an Amendment as this and to get it accepted by the Government.

§ Mr. D. Price
I beg to move, in page 73, line 25, at the end to insert: (bb) mushrooms.

§ Mr. Speaker
I imagine that it would be convenient also to consider with this Amendment the Amendment in page 78, line 22, to leave out "(including mushrooms)".

§ Mr. Price
Would it be convenient also, Mr. Speaker, to discuss at the same time the Amendment in page 73, line 42, after "fruits" insert "or mushrooms".

§ Mr. Speaker
If the House so pleases.

§ Mr. Price
These Amendments are intended to achieve the purpose of an Amendment moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater). Hon. Members who supported her believed that mushrooms should be included among the products covered by this paragraph and that they should fall under paragraph 3 (1, a). They would thus have been required to be sold by net weight or by gross weight if their containers weighed not more than the levels allowed by Table B of Part XII of the Schedule.
I agreed with hon. Members that there was no reason why mushrooms should not be included, but I pointed out that when pre-packed they are generally sold in punnets which weigh more than the Table B container allowances. I said that if pre-packed mushrooms were to be included in Part VII of the Fourth Schedule it would be necessary to have a container allowance which would cover the punnets—namely the Table C allowance which applies to goods in subparagraph (1, b). I told hon. Members that we would put down an Amendment to enable mushrooms to be covered by Table C. That is the effect of these three Amendments. The first creates a new sub-paragraph for mushrooms, since it would hardly be botanically correct to include them among "soft fruits" in subparagraph (1, b). The second provides that the Table C allowances shall apply to mushrooms as well as to soft fruits. 1479 The third is consequential on the first two. It ends the present exemption for mushrooms in paragraph (3) of Part XI from the general marking arrangements for pre-packed goods imposed by Part XI. This is no longer necessary as mushrooms will now be covered by Part VII, and not by Part XI of the Fourth Schedule. I hope that with that explanation the House will see fit to accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. Loughlin
Will the hon. Gentleman give some guidance on this? I understand that "mushroom" is an edible fungus, but I cannot find "mushroom" defined in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman will know that the variety of edible fungi is quite large. I do not want to go deeply into this matter because I am a townee, but there is a very good book in the Library in which the author, who is an expert on mushrooms, defies anyone to say what a mushroom is. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell me if he is to define mushroom at a later stage or if he can say what it means in view of the fact that it is an all-embracing term covering edible fungi?

§ Mr. Price
There are many terms in the Bill which are not explicitly defined. In want of definition, one takes the common trade parlance.

§ Mr. Bence
Oh.

§ Mr. Price
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) may say "Oh", but we would have to provide a vast definition for blackberries, black currants and so on, if we tried to define everything precisely.
I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), because I know there is a wide range of edible fungi, but they are not normally sold in the shops in this country. My private inquiries—which have nothing to do with official inquiries —tell me that in fact most retailers today sell cultivated mushrooms rather than field mushrooms, because of the risk with field mushrooms of being caught under the Food and Drugs Act due to parasites and so on being in them. This apparently is an occupational hazard when trying to sell field or wood mushrooms.
I am not aware of any edible fungi, in so far as that may be considered a generic term, other than mushrooms being 1480 sold normally by retail trade, although no doubt the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West—like myself—fancies his skill in picking up an edible toadstool and risking a by-election by eating it. I assure the House that my inquiries tell me that what is normally called a mushroom in trade parlance is a cultivated one and that is what the term covers. If it should become the practice in this country to sell commercially what in France is called cèpe, then it might be necessary to make a change, but we have powers under order to do this. At the moment the practice is to sell only mushrooms.

§ Mr. Loughlin
There is developing a Continental trade in cèpe, which is a mushroom, and so is a puffball a mushroom. This provision has to cover any development of the trade. It may well be that this Continental development will spread to this country.

§ Mr. Charles A. Howell (Birmingham, Perry Barr)
Will the Minister have further consultations on the question of mushrooms before the Bill goes to another place. Most of the mushrooms on sale are cultivated in a big business, but if one goes back to the field mushrooms one finds that they are basically seasonal. There is a form of mushroom called Morrelle, or called Blue Nose in rural areas. These are still sold in the season straight from the field. Morrelles are nothing like mushrooms either in colour or in taste. Would they be outside the scope of this provision? If they would, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will consult people in horticulture to see whether the words "mushrooms or Morrelles" should be included.

§ Mr. D. Price
I think that the word "mushroom" covers it all but in view of the interest which hon. Members have shown in the more unusual type of edible fungi, I will ensure that the term "mushroom" covers them all. Should it not do so, no doubt it would be proper in another place to change the word "mushroom" to "edible fungi". For the moment I ask the House to be content with the Amendment. I gave an undertaking in Standing Committee that mushrooms, including edible fungi, would be included in the Bill. I will make sure that "mushrooms" covers trade in cèpe, and in the meantime I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. Jay
Does the hon. Member mean that the word "mushroom", which he is putting in the Bill, covers all the other edible fungi, including what he calls an edible toadstool?

§ Mr. Price
They are the same thing.

§ Mr. Bence
I beg to move, in page 78, line 38, to leave out "five" and insert "three".
This Amendment is not connected with mushrooms. It is connected with soft drinks. As it is getting late, I will content myself with moving it formally.

§ Mr. D. Price
The Amendment, which appears very similar to a previous Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), relates to the exemption from the Part XI marking requirement for small containers of soft drink under five fluid oz.—that is, about ¼ pint. The Amendment would reduce the exemption limit to three fluid oz.
If the Amendment were accepted, the bulk of what I believe are termed "baby" sized bottles of mineral waters, which contain about 4 fluid oz., would have to be marked with the quantity of their contents. This would be difficult in practice, and particularly so for carbonated drinks. There are great difficulties in filling small bottles with a precise amount of carbonated liquid and the difficulties are increased by the variation in capacity which, as we discussed on an earlier Amendment, is inevitable with bottles of this size. To mark these very small soft drinks and mineral waters would be an onerous requirement out of all proportion to the need to protect the 1482 consumer, who can generally see at a glance the amount of soft drink he is getting.
The hon. Gentleman no doubt feels that there is an analogy between this Amendment and one of his previous Amendments, which the House accepted, concerning intoxicating liquor. I cannot accept that there is a completely valid comparison, first because of the difficulties of dealing with carbonated fluid, and second because of the difference in the cost of the two commodities concerned. Most consumers would surely agree that there is a far greater need for quantity information on a 4 oz. bottle of gin than on a similar amount of tonic. Although I should very much like to have recommended the House to accept both the hon. Gentleman's Amendments —the hon. Gentleman has been very active and helpful during the passage of the Bill—I am afraid that I must recommend the House not to accept this Amendment on soft drinks, although I was very happy that the House accepted the Amendment on alcoholic drinks.

§ Mr. Bence
I am grateful for the great compliment which the hon. Gentleman has paid us by admitting that the other liquid is dangerous if drunk in excessive quantities, and it is also expensive. Soft drink is much cheaper and it is safe to drink as much as one likes. Therefore, the same sort of protection is not needed. What the hon. Gentleman has just said is a great compliment to those of us who have fought in the temperance movement all our lives. In view of what I think was a very reasonable explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.