SOFT DRINKS

HC Deb 23 June 1964 vol 697 cc336-62

9.2 p.m.

Mr. George Darling (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Soft Drinks Regulations 1964 (S.I., 1964, No. 760), dated 21st May 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st June, be annulled. I think that it will be convenient if we also take the second Prayer, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, which deals with the Scottish Regulations.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray)

If that be the wish of the House, so be it.

Mr. Darling

These Regulations have some association with the Bill which we discussed a short time ago. I suppose that the intention of the Regulations is to make sure that the lemonade sold in these sleazy refreshment houses is up to standard.

This is where we came in a year ago, on 17th June last, to be precise, when we discussed the Soft Drinks Regulations then introduced by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He warmly welcome and commended those Regulations to the House. Although they were not complete—they did not cover the semi-sweet and low calory drinks—nevertheless, he felt that it would be wrong to delay their introduction.

The operation was not to be exactly marked with speed, because those Regulations were not to come into operation until this month of this year. Despite the Parliamentary Secretary's plea that the Regulations should not be delayed, as I understand it he is now asking us that they should be delayed for another year, so that they will not come into operation until June next year. We want to know why. What is the reason for this further incredible and inexcusable delay? I am sure that it cannot be because the semi-sweet and low calory drinks are now to be included, because the Parliamentary Secretary is on record as saying that the Regulations should not be delayed for that purpose.

I hope that we shall get from the Parliamentary Secretary the reasons for the delay, and that we shall get a convincing explanation. I hope, too, that he will not tell us that the new rules for the composition and labelling of these drinks, which he so warmly commended to us last year, are being held up as a result of further representations from the manufacturers. After all, the Regulations have been under discussion since 1959 when the Food Standards Committee recommended them, and, goodness knows, that Committee does not work with very noticeable speed. In fact, its examination of the soft drinks business had been going on for some time before it made its recommendations. My calculation is that the Ministry has had five years in which to consult all the trade interests involved, and I should have thought that that was more than enough time in which to take the manufacturers' views into consideration

Incidentally, the law in this regard calls on the Minister to consult consumer interests as well, and I shall be glad to know whether during the last year the delay, the reasons for it and the Regulations themselves have been discussed with the Consumer Council, because it is the Council's job to look after this side of things.

If the Parliamentary Secretary is going to tell us that manufacturers of semi-sweet and low calorie drinks must be given adequate time to alter the labels on their bottles, and perhaps alter the composition of their drinks to bring them within the Regulations, may I tell him that that argument will not go down with us, because I repeat that he rejected that argument last year when he said that the Regulations should not be held up to accommodate these two types of drinks.

I do not think that that can be the real reason for the delay. I shall listen to what the hon. Gentleman has to say, but I suspect that there has been some pressure from the manufacturers of other soft drinks too who will be quite pleased to have another year's grace before they have to adapt their drinks and their labels to the new Regulations. Quite frankly, though, I do not see what they have to worry about, because, as I said last year, and I say it again, these Regulations are in my view disgracefully inadequate. They will allow manufacturers to foist off what I call synthetic chemical drinks on the market under misleading labels which are designed to deceive customers into believing that they are buying drinks that are made wholly or mainly of fruit juice.

Last year the Parliamentary Secretary evaded some of the criticisms and questions that I put forward about these Regulations This time I intend to be a little more specific, and to put some pointed questions to him. I should like to begin with the permitted fruit crushes, the drinks that are not going to be diluted by the customer. The Regulations say that orange and barley water, and lemon and barley, and lime juice and soda need contain no more than 3 per cent. of fruit juice and that all the other so-called fruit drinks need contain no more than 5 per cent. of fruit juice.

Let us take the higher figure. Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that a drink with only 5 per cent. of fruit juice m it should be described as a fruit drink and labelled in such a way as to give the customer the impression that he is buying a bottle of fruit juice? Is the hon. Gentleman really satisfied with the low standard of 5 per cent.?

I admit that we have to distinguish between two issues here. The first is whether the permitted fruit content is too low or not. Secondly, if we reluctantly accept this very low standard, we have to ask ourselves how the drink should be labelled and advertised.

Let me take the first point. A drink which consists of nine-tenths water and some sweetening agent and about one-twentieth of fruit juice, would be terribly insipid to drink, and, in fact, almost undrinkable. As we know, it is made into a saleable drink by the addition of chemicals. In fact, it is the chemicals and not the fruit juice which gives the drink its taste, its appearance and whatever qualities it may possess. In my view, these drinks ought to have more fruit and fewer chemicals in them. If we reluctantly accept these standards, surely we ought to insist that the labels and the advertising clearly explain what is in the bottle. Surely that is a proposition that ought to be accepted generally by now. If we do not do this, we are conniving at misleading advertising.

Look what is going into the bottles. First, let us look at the permitted sweeteners that are described, if I can use that term, under Schedule 1. There is saccharin calcium. We are told here that saccharin calcium is the calcium derivative of 2-sulphobenzoic imide with 3½ molecules water of crystallisation and contains not less than 98 per cent. of (C₇ H₄ NO₃ S)₂, Ca calculated with reference to the substance dried to constant weight at 105°C. It will be appreciated that this is an important matter. This is what is going into the drink. Frankly, I have not the faintest idea what it is—I do not think anyone else has either. Then we have another under paragraph (4). I cannot pronounce it, but we know what it is because it is described here as an acid which contains not less than 98 per cent. and not more than 102 per cent."— I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain how one gets 102 per cent. of this substance inside whatever it is— of C₆ H₁₂ NO₃S with reference to the substance dried to constant weight at 105°C. Curiously enough, it must not have more than 1 per cent. ash. I should like to know what happens if someone finds out that there is more than 1 per cent. ash. Does that mean that all the substances in the bottles have to be destroyed? I also notice that these acids must not smell of ammonia.

Another one is calcium cyclamate. I shall not describe it, except to say that in certain regards it must not show any turbidity—I am sure that is an important point, too—and it must not smell of ammonia. The next one cyclohexylamine must not show any turbidity or smell of ammonia. I should like to know what all this business is about ammonia. Are they putting ammonia into these bottles, provided that it does not smell?

Then we turn to the acids that can be put in. These are only the sweeteners. Regulation (6) says that any soft drink may contain ascorbic acid, citric acid, lactic acid, malic acid, nicotinic acid, tartaric acid and any acid that is permitted to be used under the Preservatives in Food Regulations or the Colouring Matter in Food Regulations. Certain soft drinks can contain acetic acid and phosphoric acid.

These are the substances that are going into these so-called fruit drinks. It is a combination of acids and sweeteners with all these peculiar descriptions that people are going to drink. It is this stuff that gives the drinks whatever quality they possess.

Incidentally, there is a weakness in these Regulations. The artificial sweeteners are carefully explained. Their various constituents are set out, but there is no such explanation of the contents of the acids. I have a feeling that these may contain lots of things that people should not be drinking.

Under these Regulations we are allowing manufacturers to put all these chemical concoctions into their drinks and quite misleadingly label them as fruit drinks. If this is the sort of stuff that customers want they can have it, but we have a duty to make sure that these chemical drinks are properly and honestly labelled. Why should not we insist that the amount of fruit juice and the various chemicals used in its manufacture are clearly stated on the labels?

Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that these drinks should be honestly labelled? Further, where do Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola and 7-Up come into this? Are they fruit drinks? If they are not, and are therefore outside the scope of these Regulations, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us what they are made of, and why we have no Regulations to cover them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he thinks that drinks should be honestly labelled. If he thinks they should not be, will he tell us why?

Will he- also answer a question which he failed to answer when we were discussing this question last year? The Regulations contain no mention of advertisements. The only references are to labelling. Do the rules about labelling also apply to advertisements, including television advertisements? This is an important point. Last year I mentioned what I regard as a thoroughly dishonest advertisement for an orange drink, which used the words "whole orange drink". The labels and the advertisements for this drink are deliberately designed to give the wholly false impression that the drink is made from oranges and nothing but oranges. In fact, it is largely a chemical concoction of the kind of which I was talking a short time ago.

The words "whole orange drink" are used because a small proportion of the fruit juice is comminuted. According to the Regulations a comminuted citrus drink means a soft drink produced by a process involving the comminution of the entire citrus fruit". In other words, all the pulp, the pith and the skin are squeezed together, and not merely the juice from the centre of the fruit. Will the Regulations, as drafted, allow manufacturers of these drinks to go on using the words "whole orange drink" in their advertisements and on their labels? If the Regulations do allow this, their labelling is almost worthless as a protection against deceptive advertising.

Has the Minister considered the fact that the persons who put out these misleading advertisements are probably committing an offence under Section 6 of the 1955 Food and Drugs Act, and that his Ministry should have taken action long ago to stop this? If they are offences under the Act we should be doing wrong to permit offences under the Regulations. Section 6 of the 1955 Act is one of the most perfectly drafted Sections that I have seen in any legislation, and by quoting it I can get over my point quite simply. I will leave out all references to drugs, because they do not come into our considerations. It says: A person who gives with any food of drug sold by him, or displays with any food or drug exposed by him for sale, a label, whether attached to or printed on the wrapper or container or not, which … falsely describes the food or drugs, or … is calculated to mislead as to its nature, substance or quality, shall be guilty of an offence …". That is the labelling.

The same words are used, but I want to quote them, in regard to advertising: … a person who publishes, or is a party to the publication of, an advertisement … which—

1. (a) falsely describes any food, … or
2. (b) is calculated to mislead as to the nature, substance or quality of any food … shall be guilty of an offence."

I could go through all the advertisements and all the labelling for this range of fruit drinks. The kinds of advertisements about which I have been talking are, in my view, calculated to deceive. They come within the terms of Section 6 and are calculated to deceive as to the nature, substance or quality of the food that they attempt to describe. This is misleading advertising and labelling. We passed an Act of Parliament in 1955 to stop it. We are now producing Regulations under that Act of Parliament which, as far as I can see, will permit this same misleading advertising and labelling to go on. This is the point which the Ministry should very seriously consider, because if action is taken by somebody—the time is coming when action should be taken under Section 6 of the Food and Drugs Act against misleading advertising—we shall find ourselves in difficulties by agreeing to Regulations which are contrary to the provisions of the Act.

The criticisms I have made about undiluted drinks could be applied equally to squashes, drinks that can be, and are, diluted by the customer. I will not comment on the new Schedules referring to semi-sweet soft drinks and the rules about low calorie drinks. I should be glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation of their inclusion.

I must tell the Parliamentary Secretary that we on this side think that the Regulations are inadequate, that they set standards for these drinks which, in our view, are far too low, and that the labelling and advertising rules are far too weak and will permit deceptive advertising and labelling to go on. Above all, we deplore this further year's delay in applying these new Regulations, weak and inadequate as they are. We await with some interest the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation of this inexcusable delay.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Peter Doig (Dundee, West)

Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), I believe that it is a good thing that these Regulations are being delayed. This is not because I do not believe that there should be much stricter control. It is because I believe that the Regulations are so bad that they will make matters much worse.

A firm in my constituency which was the inventor of carbonated food drinks as long ago as 1924—I refer to Robertson Fruit Products, Ltd.—registered one of its main brands over 40 years ago and has been trading with it ever since. These Regulations were supposed to clear matters up and make it much simpler for people to know just what they were buying. In the opinion of this firm, and in my own opinion after having studied the matter, they will do the exact opposite.

I raised this matter with the Secretary of State for Scotland some time ago. In reply to my inquiry I received a letter from his Department saying: The object of the regulations is to bring some order into the hitherto confusing welter of names and descriptions of soft drinks, and tile term ' crush ' as defined in the regulation fits well into the general pattern described. We find, however, that as a result of the Regulations a pure orange drink must be described now as "crush" while a drink that is made from crushed oranges, including the peel, is described as an "orange drink". Could anything be more confusing?

The firm in my constituency has been selling a pure fruit drink, described as "orange", for a very long time, but once these Regulations come into effect it will not be allowed to continue to do so. I was interested to note that it has been said that these firms were consulted, because later in the reply I received from the Secretary of State's Department I read: The regulations were made after consultation with the soft drinks industry and after full consideration of representations from individual firms, including Mr. Robertson's". Meanwhile, Robertson's says: This is absolutely untrue. We were never at any time consulted. We did write letters of protest, and enclose copies, but consulted, no! Probably the oldest firm in this industry has never been consulted. This is what it means. It would seem that these Regulations have been designed to try to make things simpler, but by pressure from certain firms they have had exactly the opposite effect; and well-known firms which have been trying to give a pure fruit drink and which have been doing this for more than 40 years—and doing a good trade not confined to Dundee, for Robertson's has factories throughout Scotland—are being placed in difficulties. It is wrong that they should have to suffer because of bad regulations. This is exactly what will happen to the firm in my constituency, after 40 years of building up a reputation for providing a pure fruit drink. Although it has labelled its product "orange", it can no longer call it that, but must call it "orange crush".

The people who do not produce pure fruit drinks, but who include the pith of the orange as well as the skin and the juice, can call their products "orange drink". This is not clarifying the position, but making it more confused than ever. An interesting point which has been brought to my notice is that Robertson's states: As regards lime cordial, the Minister decided that as the clear product, made from lime juice, and requiring dilution, had been sold under the name ' Lime Juice Cordial ' for very many years, there were sufficiently good reasons for permitting that description … There can be no doubt that when the Regulations were first drafted it was definitely decided that that name would not be allowed. Presumably, because of pressure from influential producers, the Regulations were changed to suit the very influential producers of this cordial.

The firm in my constituency about which I am speaking has, as I have said, used the name it has been using for its product for more than 40 years. Is that not a long time? It is strange that exceptions are made for some firms but not for others. So we have this farcical situation that one can now sell what is by no stretch of the imagination a pure orange drink as an orange drink, but one cannot sell a pure orange drink as an orange drink but must call it "orange squash".

This seems very strange. The last time I raised this matter it was pointed out by way of explanation that we should see how the Regulations would work out. That is a very irresponsible attitude for a Government to take, because these firms have laid out vast sums of money on advertising a product in a certain way and they have built large stocks of labels. To say now that they must change all that in order to try out an idea which any sensible person would regard as a poor one seems to me the wrong thing to do.

The Government ought not to delay the application of these Regulations, but scrap them and start all over again and consult all the firms in the industry and not merely one or two selected ones. They should draw up much better regulations after fuller consideration of all the interests in the trade. I hope that they will undertake to do this between now and the time when the Regulations come into operation. The Government have confused the issue to such an extent that I believe that they should delay the application of the Regulations for at least a year and, during that time, prepare and bring in new ones.

9.36 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)

I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is an expert on soft drinks, will be able with his customary eloquence to hold the House spellbound with his explanation of what these Regulations, and particularly the Scottish ones, seek to achieve. Here is a Statutory Instrument of 19 pages, excluding the Explanatory Note, laying down in great detail what must be or must not be done in making a soft drink. I cannot help thinking of the amazing lengths to which we have to go to protect the consumer against private enterprise.

This is a great tribute to private enterprise. I hope that hon. Members opposite when they speak of the virtues of private enterprise will realise that one of those virtues is that we spend hours and hours in the House seeking to protect ourselves against it. Indeed we spend so much time that private enterprise is cribbed, cabined and confined, and has been even since about 1850, until today it is doubtful whether there is any such thing as private enterprise left in the country.

These Regulations are particularly interesting because they tell us which artificial sweeteners are to be permitted in soft drinks. They are not content simply to name them but they specify them at great length over one and a half pages. They describe the degree of solubility and they lay down requirements for the composition of fruit juice and "potable fruit content". I look forward to hearing the Joint Under-Secretary on the potable fruit content of these drinks and the quantities of added sugar or permitted artificial sweetener and other requirements which are laid down in great detail in the Regulations.

The acids that can be used in these drinks are specified. The labelling of drinks mad; from citrus fruits and the juice of citrus fruits is specified. It is interesting to look at the labelling instructions. Even the size of the lettering has to be specified; it must not be less than one eighth of an inch, because we have become accustomed to private enterprise using such small type that no one can read it. That is the honesty of private enterprise. The initial letter may be larger than the others. We even tell these people how it is to be done, and the size of the lettering.

We also provide … that where no words appear on any label on the said container, and no words appear on the container, other than any … printed on a cork, stopper or cap closing that container, or … embossed or fired on the container, being words which do not conflict with the requirements of these regulations … and refer those concerned to Regulations 8, 9(2), 10, 11, 12 and 14—what an array of Regulations to specify the type of word that can be put on. We are not content just to state the kind of word and the size of the words to be used; we specify … the use of pictorial devices and words suggestive of fruit … The manufacturers are told what they can and cannot do in that respect. These Regulations are, indeed, most illuminating.

I only hope that hon. Members opposite, who are such great protagonists of the virtues of private enterprise, will ask themselves why it is necessary for ordinary folk to have to go to these enormous lengths to protect themselves against private enterprise, to ensure that what they get is what they are supposed to get, that it will not do them any harm, and is of a quality that measures up to what it is supposed to be.

There is a lesson to be learned here. Although the Regulations are confined in this case to soft drinks, what I say applies to private enterprise generally. The more I looked at some of these details the more I was amazed that we should have to do this sort of thing. It would be much better to look on these matters in a different light. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will take note of the important lesson contained in this little exercise. It is a forlorn hope, of course, but I hope that when next they speak with such great enthusiasm about private enterprise, they will remember these things; and what we have to do to protect ourselves from it.

9.45 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins)

We have had a short but interesting debate, and I am glad to have the opportunity of trying to answer the various points which have been put to me by hon. Members opposite.

As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) said, this is virtually an identical debate to the one which we had last year. Most of the questions which he asked tonight he has asked me before. I answered them last year, and I shall endeavour to give him as good an explanation as I did then. I doubt whether I can give him a better explanation than I gave last year. The first criticism concerned delay. He said that he turned up the speech which I made at the Box last year and he will see that I explained how, at a late stage after the consultations had taken place, it was suggested that the Regulations should specifically provide for two new classes of soft drinks—the semi-sweet ones and the low calory ones. I saw no reason for holding up the Regulations last year because of the new types which were liable to come forward

I went on to say, however, that we had agreed to consider the proposal and, if necessary, to make further Regulations to provide for those particular categories. We have concluded the consultations, and the result is the Regulations before the House.

It would have been possible to deal with the matter by way of amending Regulations, but the result would have been extremely complicated and difficult to understand. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), experienced though he is, found great difficulty in understanding these Regulations. If we had introduced amending Regulations to the 1963 Regulations, the result would have been so complicated and complex that it would have been extremely difficult for anyone, even the experts, to understand and operate the Regulations.

There are two other points which I must ask the House to remember. A great many labels are used in a year, and I think that it is only right that reasonable time should be given to dispose of labels which are already in circulation before the new Regulations come in requiring a new type of label to be put on all products. Time must also be given for printing.

Also, it is desirable, as far as possible, to have one operative date for all the Regulations to facilitate their administration by the local food and drug authorities. In addition, the House will recognise the need to synchronise the introduction of the compositional and labelling requirements. On those three counts it is necessary for the Regulations to come into force on a date which will enable a reasonable time for printing, and so on, and the adaptation which is necessary because of the new Regulations. It is not unreasonable to say, therefore, that the Regulations should come in during June next year.

There are changes in these Regulations, as I am sure the hon. Member for Hillsborough will realise. We have taken the opportunity to deal with further types of drinks, namely, those with mixed fruit juice and fruit bases. In addition, the sodium and calcium cyclamates may now be used as sweeteners. The requirements in the 1963 Regulations for accurate and informative labelling to protect customers are extended under the 1964 Regulations to the new types of drinks, and vending machines will have to bear a means of informing the consumer of the nature of the drink being offered for sale. Slight modifications have been introduced to allow the users of bottles with fired-on and embossed declarations, which do not normally use labels, to comply with the new labelling provisions in these Regulations. Obviously these are considerable changes, and it was right and proper that there should be this delay.

May I turn quickly to the points raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) about consultation. Full consultations with all the interests concerned have taken place. I am informed that lengthy correspondence took place between the firm in his constituency—I think that it is Robertson's—and my right hon. Friend's Department concerning the Regulations, and about the various difficulties which Robertson's foresaw and the views which they held about the proposed Regulations.

Mr. Doig

The firm claimed that this correspondence took place after the Government had decided what the Regulations were to be and that they were not previously consulted. I have a letter signed by the managing director of the firm saying that this was so.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

The hon. Member realises that these are the Regulations before the House now. The Government cannot have finally decided what the Regulations were to be until they were drafted and laid. Consultations were going on until that time, and the firm in question had an opportunity of making representations about the problems and difficulties which they foresaw. I am informed that they did in fact do so. I am sorry that the hon. Member feels that this was not adequate to meet the needs of his constituents.

Mr. Darling

Will the hon. Member clear up a problem about consultation? Is the method that there are consultations around a table with the appropriate trade associations and that if any individual firm feels, for its own reasons, that it wants to make representations, those representations are made by correspondence and there is no discussion with the firm?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

The Act obliges us to follow a procedure of consultation with all the interested parties. These include consumers and manufacturers, such as the firm in the constituency of the hon. Member for Dundee, West. They are given every opportunity of putting forward their comments and suggestions, both on the reports made to us by the Food Standards Committee and also on our proposals for Regulations. How they do this is a matter for them. We take into account not only the consumer interests but also the problems which manufacturers may have to face in complying with any new legislation. I accept that these problems are considerable, particularly in some cases.

May I turn to some points made by the hon. Member for Hillsborough. He asked me whether there had been discussions with the Consumer Council, and the answer is that there were consultations with the Consumer Council before the Regulations were laid. Next, he wanted information about what he called synthetic drinks. Those to which he is referring are. called lemonade or orangeade, for example—with "ade" at the end. If they do not have any fruit in them, they are not allowed to use the appellation which is laid down in the Regulations for the other types of drink. They must have the syllable "ade" behind the name, so there is no question of misrepresentation.

Mr. Darling

The question which I put was whether he thought that the fruit drinks with only 3 per cent. fruit could honestly be described as fruit drinks.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

I was coming to that point. I am trying to deal first, however, with the point made by the hon. Member about synthetic drinks.

The fruit crushes are drinks which are ready to be drunk by the consumer on the spot. There seems to be some confusion in hon. Members' minds with fruit juice, which is described on page 2 of the Regulations: ' fruit juice ' means the clean, sound, undiluted juice of the fruit or fruits from which it is obtained". Pure, undiluted fruit juice is not covered by the Regulations at all. The crushes are a drink which should be compared with squash. If the hon. Member for Hillsborough refers to the definition of squash, he will see that it must contain at least 25 per cent. fruit-juice. He will find it in Schedule 2 on page 12 of the Regulations. I am comparing squash—the undiluted drink, which is made to be diluted—with crush, the drink which has been diluted.

I am informed that squash is diluted by about five times, so that in the end one gets approximately the same juice content of 4 or 5 per cent. The crush is a drink which is meant for the consumer to drink straight down, and it compares as nearly as possible with the squash which needs to be diluted. The fruit content is quite adequate if one takes the squash as a basis.

Mr. Darling

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive my interrupting so much, but he has not answered my question. I agree that we have perhaps, used certain phrases a little too loosely. When a drink which contains only 3 per cent. of fruit juice is described as a whole orange drink, does the hon. Gentleman regard that as honest labelling?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

That is not the point I was dealing with. I was dealing with the description laid down in the Regulations, and contending that a juice content of 3 per cent. or 5 per cent. for a fruit crush was adequate and does not deceive the public, particularly if one makes comparison with squash, which must contain at least 25 per cent. fruit juice in its undiluted state before dilution by the consumer. There is no misrepresentation or misleading of the public by this kind of labelling.

The hon. Member asked about Coca-Cola. This comes under the category of any other soft drink in the last item of Part I of Schedule 2 on page 11 of the Regulations. It comes under this heading only for the purposes of the sugar content. It must have a minimum sugar content.

Mr. Darling

So the hon. Gentleman does not know what it is made of.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

That is its position as far as these Soft Drinks Regulations are concerned.

The hon. Member made a point about advertising and labelling and said that the Regulations did not cover the advertising of these soft drinks. Advertising is not covered by the Regulations, which deal only with what can be put on the label or embossed or fired on to the bottle.

The hon. Member found difficulty in understanding the definitions of artificial sweeteners. It has been extremely difficult for my Department to deal with this aspect, but I think that a good job has been made of it. The difficulty is that the British Pharmacopoeia lays down no specifications for the new artificial sweeteners which we have excluded in these Regulations. I except saccharin, the definition of which, as the hon. Gentleman will see from the first item of Schedule 1, refers directly to the definition in the British Pharmacopoeia. But for the other substances there is no specification in the British Pharmacopoeia.

The whole purpose of these Regulations is to ensure the purity of the products to be used in drinks as artificial sweeteners, so, obviously, one has to go into detail to make quite clear to those qualified to deal with these matters, chemists, and so on, exactly what the artificial sweeteners are. The descriptions in Schedule 1 of the various substances to be used as artificial sweeteners correspond in type and form, as near as possible, to the British Pharmacopoeia definitions of like products of a different nature. I am sure that the House will agree that an extremely exhaustive job has been done so that very little doubt can be raised by expert chemists, and those dealing with these matters, about the purity of the substances concerned.

The hon. Gentleman raised a point about the figure of 102 per cent. This is related to the method of analysis and the possible error involved, which can be of the order of about 2 per cent. That is the explanation there.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of safety, and he referred particularly to the acids permitted to be used under Regulation 6. He will have seen that these are covered by the Preservatives in Food Regulations, 1962, or the Colouring Matter in Food Regulations, 1957. The descriptions are fully set out there.

The hon. Member for Dundee, West raised a point which, I think, goes back to what I was saying just now about the pure fruit juice and the difference between crushes and squashes. He spoke about the comminuted drinks, and I understand that the firm in his own constituency has been making a non-comminuted drink which will now have to be called a crush.

The hon. Gentleman will have seen the definition of a comminuted drink in the Regulations. As he rightly says, such a drink includes the entire fruit, pips and everything, all chopped up in a mechanical process. It is a different kind of drink, and I think that we have here to provide a different name for it. The hon. Gentleman was, I think, confusing the point a little. He kept speaking of pure orange drink, pure fruit drink, and so on, which are referred to on page 2. These do not come under these particular Regulations. They are a separate article which is labelled "pure fruit juice".

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East paid a great tribute to private enterprise manufacturers inasmuch as they had made the Government bring in Regulations of this kind. He seems to forget that our tastes become more sophisticated and that science advances at a great pace under Conservative Government, as it has done over the past 12 years. I find it rather remarkable that hon. Members opposite seem to be having great difficulty with the chemicals and other technical matters covered by these Regulations, yet the image they are trying to project at the moment is all supposed to be "science based", and so on. I find it rather difficult to match the two images. They seem to be shying away from anything to do with new scientific advances in this matter.

Of course, as science advances and our tastes become more sophisticated, it is only right that the Government should accept as their duty—

Mr. Willis

All this is very interesting and amusing, but what has it got to do with the printing of these things on the labels in letters which people can read?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

I was trying to answer the hon. Gentleman's point. As I understood him, he was making an attack on private enterprise. Perhaps I was wrong. If he has now been converted to the virtues of private enterprise, I am delighted. I was explaining that, when these developments occur, it is right that the Government should take notice and do what is necessary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on."] I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily on this point.

These compositions and labelling Regulations are sufficiently clear and detailed to cover the entire range of soft drinks. I know that problems have been raised by certain manufacturers, but I trust that it will be possible for these to be overcome I am certain that the interest of the consumer is being properly safeguarded by these Regulations, taking into account all the advances which have been made over the years, and I commend them to the House. I hope that the hon. Member for Hillsborough will see fit to ask leave to withdraw his Motion.

Mr. Willis

Why is it not necessary to protect members of Her Majesty's Forces? If this is not an improper question, is it that they have less sophisticated tastes than civilians have?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

The hon. Gentleman will realise that this all comes under the control of the Food and Drugs Act, and the administering authorities are the local authorities. The purpose of the Regulations is to enable local authorities to enforce our food and drugs laws. This naturally does not apply to the circumstances of our Forces overseas.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) on the way in which he has mastered these Regulations. I was very surprised that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary seemed to tike my hon. Friend to task for having slipped up on one very small matter. I noticed that there were about three or four matters on which he himself slipped up.

In his concluding remarks the hon. Gentleman suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), was quite wrong in drawing attention to the fact that we are here laying strict Regulations upon private enterprise to ensure that food and its labelling shall be such as to comply with the requirements of the Ministry in the interests of the health and well-being of the public. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think this amusing. Then he talked about the Labour Party and science. We often talk about the need for science-based industries in Scotland but I never thought that we were really talking about fruit juices.

The more one reads these Regulations the more one can appreciate the concern of the Government that this has become a science-based industry. It is more science-based than nature-based. Many people enjoy soft drinks. Dare we call these drinks "squashes"? Or are they "crush" or "cordial"? All these seem to be interchangeable terms. Or shall we just call them soft drinks? People buy them under the impression that they are buying fruit. Many of these drinks are at a considerable price. If anyone reads these Regulations I doubt whether he would drink any of these things again.

As a good Scotsman I was interested in the definition of "soft drink". How difficult that is can be judged by the amount of time it takes to define a soft drink. I am glad to note that "soft drink" does not include water.

Mr. Willis

Except as aforesaid.

Mr. Ross

This matter is sufficiently confused without my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East suddenly remembering that he is not a Scotsman but an Englishman, and trying to confuse me.

At one time the Government went as far as to say that a soft drink must not be an intoxicating drink. That was a staggering discovery. Then they discovered that an alcohol could be a soft drink provided that it was a certain type of alcohol. It has not been clarified by these Regulations.

We have seen some of this before. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has not referred to the case of the Dundee firm which claimed that it was not adequately consulted. It is not enough to say that there were consultations up to the time that these Regulations were printed. The implication that the delay between the information my hon. Friend got and the hon. Member's knowledge when these Regulations were printed may be that consultations took place, but that claim is marred by the fact that we are returning to this subject after an interval of months.

We have been here before and the Government have made changes which may well have arisen out of our discussions and criticism last time. Surely the Government had time to get in touch with the Dundee firm and discuss the matter with it. On this score, I am talking not about the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, but about his "Tam o' Shanter"—the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Scotland has a set of Regulations almost exactly the same as the English. There are one or two differences. As we are taking these two Statutory Instruments together, I think that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary might have referred to those differences. He decided to say nothing about them.

The obligation to discuss the matter with the Dundee firm was not his and if he had said he knew nothing about it he could have deferred to the superior knowledge of the Under-Secretary of State, who will give us later the full explanation of the Scottish Order. We could have understood that. Has anything been done about this firm's case? It has been manufacturing and selling very successfully for 40 years and has been offended by not being consulted and having its interests adequately considered by the Scottish Office.

These Regulations were made on 26th May. The English Regulations were made on 21st May. Scotland was a little bit behind. They are to come into force as follows: regulation 19(1) shall come into force on 7th June 1964; So we are, in fact, already protected. But what is in force? That is shattering. The Soft Drinks (Scotland) Regulations, 1963(a) are hereby revoked. What comes into force is the revocation of previous Orders. The Order goes on: The Food Standards (Soft Drinks) Order 1953(a), and the Food Standards (Soft Drinks) (Amendment) Order 1954(b), are hereby revoked but without prejudice to any proceedings in respect of any contravention of the Food Standards (General Provisions) Order 1944, as amended, construed as one with the Food Standards (Soft Drinks) Order 1953, as amended. Earlier, it is stated: in all oilier respects, these regulations shall come into force on 2nd June 1965. There is action to be admired. A whole year is to pass before we receive protection from this modernised, science-based Government.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that this is quite a normal form for Regulations. One makes the general Regulations to come into force on a certain date, in this case, as he rightly said, in Regulation 1(b). If he reads through the Regulations, which I understand he has not had time to do yet, he will find in other parts, for instance Regulation 10, that a date is given for the diabetic provisions to come into effect, in this case, 1966. This is quite normal. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing sinister or misleading.

Mr. Ross

I am sure that there is nothing sinister and it may be common form for the Government, but it is misleading for anyone to read that in all other respects the Regulations are to come into force when they do not come into force, because that relating to the change in diabetic fruit drinks does not come into force on 2nd June, 1965. I am talking about the Scottish Regulations.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

They are exactly the same.

Mr. Ross

They are not exactly the same, and the hon. Gentleman knows it quite well. He has suggested that I have not read the Regulations. I can assure him that I have. I have nothing else to do but read these things. The Scottish Standing Committee has been in session every Tuesday and Thursday since November, but we find time to do our work. I do not see any Scottish Tories here, but I would be very surprised if I did. No doubt in a fort- night there will be a Question on the Order Paper asking the Government whether we now have Regulations covering soft drinks. This will be just to show how fine a Government we have. This will be after someone in the Scottish Office has provided hon. Members opposite with a Question, but forgotten to say what the answer will be, or to explain what difficulty the Government have got themselves into.

I should like some information about these two important matters. There has been not only this year's delay, but a further year's delay. Anyone who knows anything about diabetics knows that it is desirable that they should be protected very quickly and fully about what purports to be something specially made to meet their needs. Admittedly, there is a continuing Regulation until 1966 giving a description—according to the Parliamentary Secretary I have not read it, but, speaking from memory—dealing with the manufacture of these drinks for the use of diabetics.

There is a stipulation about the size of the lettering, but why cannot the phrase "diabetic drink" be introduced before 1966? There may be some difficulty about vending machines, but I doubt it. Manufacturers would no doubt put up prices and make changes to enable them to collect the extra money involved. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not gone forward with that.

The Regulations surprise me. They appear to give something, but in fact they do not. One Regulation says that no soft drink shall contain any acid. That is fine, but it then goes on to say that any soft drink may contain ascorbic acid, citric acid, lactic acid, malic acid, nicotinic acid, tartaric acid, and any acid inasmuch as the use of that acid in that soft drink is permitted by the Preservatives in Food (Scotland) Regulations, 1962, or the Colouring Matter in Food (Scotland) Regulations, 1957. Could there be any more misleading way of doing things than to start by saying that no fruit drink shall contain acid, and then to provide that it may contain the various acids to which I have referred? I think that Departments sometimes go out of their way to deceive. These Regulations are bulky and one's eyes are tired by the time one gets to page 5. One assumes that the point about the addition of acids to soft drinks is covered, but there is considerable confusion.

Sugar is not really sugar at all. It can be sugar added. Sugar means any soluble carbohydrate sweetening matter. Can the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland give us a list of what is included in that term? According to the Regulations, "sweetened" means containing any added sugar or added polyhydric alcohol or any permitted artificial sweetener. To safeguard the public with regard to the composition and content of these fruit drinks, the label must bear a declaration of what is in the container, such as "x added" or "contains x" or "x and sugar added" or "sugar and x added", and so on, and the Regulation goes on to say that the declaration shall be completed by inserting at 'x' the words 'permitted artificial sweetener' or "— they are given the option— the name of the permitted artificial sweetener which has been added to such soft drink". The Schedule sets out the permitted artificial sweeteners. I am not given to gambling and betting. In fact, I tend to frown on such practices, but I do not think that many manufacturers who are given the alternative of putting in sugar plus an artificial sweetener, or using the actual name of the artificial sweetener, will write in such names as 4—sulpha-moylbenzoates, saccharin sodium, cyclohexylsulphamic acid, and all the others. There is then a full description of all these things such as ash, sulphate, and the rest.

Why was it that the Government set out to try to tell purchasers of these drinks what they were drinking and then said that they could not ask the manufacturers to provide such an indication because the public would not purchase the drinks if they knew what was in them? We are now provided with a new formula, under which we have a list of so-called artificial sweeteners, and we are told that what we would regard as sugar need not be sugar, according to the definition, and that there will be permitted artificial sweeteners.

This is not good enough, taking into account the facts which my hon. Friend produced in relation to the often quite tenuous connection which fruit has with soft drinks, quite apart from the 25 per cent. about which the Minister held forth on the question of squash. There is definitely a question of the public's being misled.

Apparently the Government are to take this matter seriously in 1965 or 1966; so much so that one Regulation deals entirely with penalties. The Government will ensure that if these Regulations are contravened the person who so contravenes them will be dealt with. But I warn all Scots that once again the Government are being unjust to Scotland. The Regulations for England and Wales provide that If any person contravenes or fails to comply with any of the foregoing provisions of these regulations he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both, and, in the case of a continuing offence, to a further fine not exceeding five pounds … The Scottish Regulations provide for the same fine—not exceeding £100—but for a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months. It appears that either we look on money as being cheaper in Scotland, or we regard these offences much more seriously.

The Minister chided me, saying that the Regulations for both countries were the same. He seemed to suggest that I had not studied them a great deal. I can assure him that I have studied this point. I am surprised that he did not mention it, because I drew attention to it when we last discussed similar Regulations. The fact is there, and I want the Under-Secretary—junior though he may be in that tripartite office—to tell us exactly why there should be this difference. If the idea is that there shall be parity of treatment in England in respect of the gravity of an offence, I would remind him that even today we were dealing with a Bill about malicious damage, and that we might have been able to provide in that Measure for increased penalties for this kind of offence. The Minister of Agriculture might have used the legislation for this purpose.

The Parliamentary Secretary may say that the two countries are governed by different Acts, and that Scotland has more recently overhauled its criminal justice legislation and has brought certain penalties up to date. But it is surely unsatisfactory when manufacturers who supply the same materials to both England and Scotland should be subject to greater penalties in Scotland than in England if they offend against the Regulations.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. A. Stodart)

I am sure that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will remember that we did—if my memory serves me correctly—discuss this matter on Regulations relating to meat contents just after the New Year, when he had explained to him, I think, that although at first sight it does look as though the penalties in Scotland are more severe the net result probably comes to the same effect in the end, because it is the practice in Scotland to treat several related contraventions as part of a single complaint or charge which attracts a single penalty.

Under Scottish law several contraventions can be taken together and one penalty imposed, if that is so decided by the court, whereas in England and Wales such contraventions are treated as separate charges, each attracting a separate but similar penalty. Therefore, I think that at the end of the day the net result is almost certainly the same.

Mr. Ross

Whatever else it may be, the net result will not be exactly the same. I do not think there is any doubt at all about that, when we bear in mind that in England and Wales the fine shall not exceed £5 for each day during which the offence continues after conviction, whereas in Scotland it is a further fine not exceeding £10 for each day during which the offence is continued. The permitted maximum in Scotland is double what it is in England and Wales. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would stop juggling with words about this kind of matter. Whether the basis is a single offence or group of offences taken together, if there is a continuing offence, that is, one offence continuing per day, then there is a different penalty for it.

This is something which ought to be sorted out. It may be that for food and drugs it is wrong to have different standards applying. I should be the very last person to say this, because I remember very well that when we were considering the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Bill we had at that time a Secretary of State for Scotland who was prepared to listen to pleas which were made about it, and we got a better Act. One of the great arguments was whether local authorities should be able to register and license restaurants and eating premises. This was taken out of the English Bill, but the then Secretary of State for Scotland, who has gone to another place—not the one who most recently went there, but Lord Stuart of Findhorn—insisted that it stay in in Scotland.

I think that we should try to get satisfactory legislation for this. When we are giving powers to Ministers we ask for far better regulations than these Regulations, regulations which are more comprehensible, regulations which meet the very considerable needs of this country to ensure that what we purchase bears some relation to the descriptions which are given of it and to the names. We have not gone all the way yet to satisfy the public need and the public interest in that respect. But these Regulations are better than nothing, and that is all we can say favourably tonight about them.

Mr. Darling

Although we are very dissatisfied with the Regulations—and I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) that the best thing would be to let go so that we can try to knock them into shape later—in view of the fact that they are an improvement on the Regulations we had before, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.