WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (SALE OF WINE)

HC Deb 21 June 1976 vol 913 cc1279-309

12 midnight.

The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser)

I beg to move That the Weights and Measures (Sale of Wine) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved. This Order supersedes the Sale of Wine Order 1974 which came into operation on 2nd September 1974, which requires wine, when sold for consumption on the premises of the seller, to be sold only by capacity measurement except when sold pre-packed in a securely closed bottle or in a glass from which it is to be drunk.

When the House debated the Order in 1974 it was generally agreed that it did not go far enough and that it would be desirable to make further progress in this area and, in particular, that it would be desirable to introduce prescribed quantities for wine in carafes and that the seller should make known the quantities available. Under this Order, for the first time in this country, we are laying down a prescribed range of quantities.

Dr. Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We cannot hear the Minister for the talk on the other side of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)

I am sure the hon. Gentleman's observation has been heard in all parts of the House and that we shall now hear the Minister.

Mr. Fraser

I was saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this Order is unique in that, for the first time, a prescribed range of quantities will be laid down for wine which is sold in carafes. The new Order will revoke the 1974 Order and is being proposed under Sections 21(2) and 21(3) and 54(4) of the Weights and Measures Act 1963. The Order requires that such wine shall be sold in specified quantities, namely, 25 cl., 50 cl., 75 cl., 1 litre or 10 fl. oz. or 20 fl. oz.

The one unsatisfactory aspect of the Order is that, although we should be prescribing a range of quantities for the first time, as the Weights and Measures Act stands at present if one lays down a range of metric quantities one has also to lay down a range of imperial quantities at the same time. That range would be, 25 cl., 28.4 cl., 50 cl., 56.8 cl., 75 cl. or 100 cl.

Although it may be confusing for the consumer to lay down two ranges of quantities at the same time, I must tell the House that under the Weights and Measures Act 1963 I have no choice in the matter as, under Section 10(10) of that Act, it is necessary to prescribe the metric and imperial range of sizes.

In practice, we understand that the great majority of sellers will be using the metric range and, ultimately, it is our intention, if the Weights and Measures Etc. (No. 2) Bill is passed by the House, to have the power to lay down one single range of measurements which, on the whole, would be for the protection of the consumer.

Mr. Neil Marten (Banbury)

Under Clause 2(1)(i) of this Order it says that 1 litre is the maximum. Does that prohibit a 2-litre bottle from being used?

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

Put a litre in it.

Mr. Fraser

It does not prohibit a 2-litre bottle being used but it does not prescribe that as part of the range.

Mr. Marten

The point I am getting at is that the Order goes through various ranges and stops at 1 litre. If one has a 2-litre bottle, is that legal or illegal?

Mr. Fraser

Perhaps I can reflect on that and reply at the end of the debate. I think that it would require an uncommonly thirsty man to order his carafes of wine in 2-litre bottles—

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Fraser

May I finish? If I am wrong about that I shall certainly correct any misstatement at the end of the debate. I was only saying that, general arguments apart, the use of the metric range is greatly to be preferred in this case. Shortly, under the European Communities Act, the Government will be bringing forward legislation to introduce prescribed quantities for bottles of wine, which logically will be based on metric sizes only.

Mr. Richard Body (Holland with Boston)

Disgraceful.

Mr. Fraser

The hon. Member says that it is disgraceful, but as most wine drinkers will know, there are at present no prescribed quantities laid down for the sale of wine. It would be for the protection of consumers if we had prescribed minimum quantities for bottles. It would be sensible on the whole to adopt the metric ranges for that kind of sale, since pre-bottled wines which are in the main imported into this country are packed in metric quantities.

The Order excludes wines sold in secure closed bottles, which would include what is named carafe wine sold in this manner, and it would exclude circumstances in which the bottle may be decanted at the request of the buyer before being served. It is our intention to introduce prescribed quantities for bottles of wine under different legislation.

The Order also proposes to require premises selling wine in carafes or other open vessels to display a statement in writing setting out the quantities in which the wine is sold for consumption on the premises and that such information must be contained either on the wine list or in the menu which indicates that wine is available for consumption on the premises. Notices must be displayed in such a position and manner as to be readily available for inspection by the buyer without special request before the sale is made.

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans)

Does this mean that we shall not be able to have a jeroboam, a rehoboam or even a nebuchadnezzar of champagne?

Mr. Fraser

If the hon. Member wishes, he is free to order a jeroboam-sized bottle of champagne and to have it decanted into a container on the table.

Mr. David Mitchell (Basingstoke)

rose—

Mr. Fraser

But of course anyone who ordered a bottle of champagne to be decanted would be making a somewhat idiotic request of the wine waiter. The question of serving champagne in carafes is hardly likely to arise.

Finally, it is proposed that the Order should come into effect on 1st January 1977. This date has been set to allow the trade sufficient time to replace existing carafes with suitable sizes and to allow sufficient time for the printing of the necessary notices and wine lists. Section 54(2) of the Weights and Measures Act requires us, before making the Order, to consult under Section 21(2) of the Act and to consider any representations about the subject matter of the Order by representatives of organisations affected by it. These consultations have been carried out and the proposals that we are making have received wide support.

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)

In those consultations has the Minister established how much it will cost to have inspectors going around to check whether these vessels contain 28.4 cl., and how much it will cost to provide the new carafes and notices—in other words, how much additional public and private expenditure will be involved in the Order?

Mr. Fraser

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an estimate of the cost. If what the hon. Gentleman is implying is that my Department should not make consumer protection measures—and that is the only implication I can read into his remarks—we would not be making Orders for the protection of consumers in a good many cases. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have consulted extremely widely in making this Order, one incidentally, which was wanted by the House when the last Sale of Wine Order was debated. Those consultations have lead to a wide measure of support.

Obviously the Order will place some additional burdens on the trade but it has accepted the merit of the proposals, we consulted altogether 110 bodies concerned with the trade. Two suggested that 33 cl. and 66 cl. carafes should be included in the proposed range. After careful consideration we have concluded that the proposed range would best meet the needs of the consumer.

In my view the proposals represent a considerable step forward in consumer protection, albeit in a limited area, and an area in which we have hitherto lagged behind a good many other countries. For that reason I commend it to the House.

I can now reply to an earlier question about 2-litre carafes. I am advised, as the House will have seen, that one litre is the maximum permitted size. If the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) wants 2 litres the best thing to do is to buy two 1-litre carafes.

Mr. Clement Freud (Isle of Ely)

Will the Minister accept that a carafe is no sort of measure? It just depends on how full the carafe is. Would it not be far more sensible to use existing carafes of whatever size and mark them in whatever number of centilitres is desired?

Mr. Fraser

The requirement of the Order is met if the quantity of wine ordered by the purchaser is in the carafe.

12.14 a.m.

Mr. Norman Lamont (Kingston-upon-Thames)

This Order replaces the 1974 Sale of Wine Order which was much criticised when it was before the House. That Order provided that wine should be sold by capacity measure. When it was debated it was discovered that there were no provisions placing any obligation on a hotel or restaurant to display or indicate the size of a carafe. Section 23(4)(f) of the Weights and Measures Act 1963 specifically exempted the sale of intoxicating liquor.

It seemed that the previous Order was most unsatisfactory. On the occasion when we debated that Order we had also to debate the toothpaste Order. I am glad that tonight the Minister—who by his comments on litres is clearly a chateau man, and obviously belongs to the Right wing of his party—has allowed us to debate the wine Order separately. Sadly, the present Order appears to have some unsatisfactory features.

It seems that the important part of the Order requires a restaurant or other premises to indicate the contents of a carafe. My hon. Friends and I are sceptical about the specified quantities part of the Order. It is almost as if there were to be a specified quantity for steaks sold in restaurants—that steaks can be sold only in weights of 6 oz. or 12 oz., for example. Perhaps that will form the content of the next Order to be introduced by the Minister.

I assure the Minister that these are familiar quantities to be put into carafes. I rang up Egon Ronay. I am sorry that I could not contact the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). Had I been able to do so, I should have been glad to have availed myself of his expertise. There is not unanimity about the quantities specified in the Order. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) wishes to refer to some representations that have been made by the British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association, which has grave doubts about the quantities specified in the Order.

How does the Minister see the Order applying to wines sold by the glass? I hope that he does not visualise our having a sort of Euroglass in the future. Perhaps this will be one way by which restaurateurs will be able to get round the legislation. When the previous Order was debated the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Wilson) came up with some interesting statistics about wine sold by the glass. He had conducted a survey of glass sizes in Nuneaton, Learning-ton and Stratford and had found that a schooner of sherry in Nuneaton contained only 2.1 fluid ounces, that one in Learning-ton contained 3.1 fluid ounces, and that those in Stratford—this had been brought out by a number of surveys into measurements, not just of schooner sizes but also of carafe sizes—were much larger than in other parts of the country.

Lastly, Article 2(2)(b) says— is sold in the glass or other vessel". What is meant by "other vessel"? Is that the waitress's slipper?

12.18 a.m.

Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch and Lymington)

I should declare an interest as European marketing director of Commonwealth Holiday Inns of Canada Limited and also as an unpaid member of the National Council of the British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Lamont) referred—[Interruption.] I shall ignore the sedentary comments by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, if that is your wish, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because, although they may be unaware of this, there are very many people who work in the hotel and catering industry, but precious little thought they ever get from Labour Members.

The Minister said that he had consulted the industry. Is he aware even of the existence of the British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association?

Mr. John Fraser

Will the hon. Gentleman please be a little less patronising? Of course I am aware of the association's existence? That organisation and the Brewers Society were the two organisations that asked for 33 ci., 66 cl. and 100 cl. carafes. I am aware of the association's existence and have been for some time. Its views were taken into account.

Mr. Adley

I am delighted to hear the Minister say so. Is he aware of the size of the association's membership? It represents by far and away the greatest number, not only of large hotels but, much more important, small hotels and boarding houses? In this case, the large companies can probably look after themselves. It is the small people yet again who will have to bear the brunt of the difficulties which the Order will place in their way.

I accept that there is a good case for bringing forward genuine legislation to protect the consumer. I agree that it is right to know just how much the customer is buying in a carafe or bottle in any given establishment. But the Minister and the Order fail to show why it is necessary for the Government to lay down precisely what size carafe or indeed any other commodity a person may or may not sell in his restaurant.

My hon. Friend mentioned steaks. Are we to have bars of soap or jars of hair-cream which can be sold only in specified sizes? Why is the hotel and catering industry always the recipient of the most pernicious legislation introduced by the Government? Why has the pint managed to escape while the carafe has not? Could it be that the Government think that there are more votes in pints than in carafes?

Mr. Goodhew

Does not my hon. Friend think that the Order may result in many more restaurants serving their wine in earthenware carafes rather than glass carafes so that the customer cannot see how much is in a carafe?

Mr. Adley

My hon. Friend has made an important point. The Minister talked about what he described as a finely-balanced argument between 25 cl. and 33 cl. quantities. The outcome is that restaurants may well be forced to sell carafes which are larger than the customer requires because, under this Order, the Government will have specified the only sizes allowed. The consumer will not benefit in any way from this stupid Order.

The small hotel and boarding-house keepers are fed tin to the back teeth with legislation being rammed down their throats—for example, fire precautions, health legislation, industrial tribunals, and reduced quotas on foreign labour when, despite the unemployment figures, we cannot get our own people to work in the industry. There seems to be a persistent campaign of prejudice against service industries. Can the Minister himself tell the difference between 25 cl. and 10 fl. oz.? Can he tell us the size of the carafe of water on the Table before him?

I suspect that this Order, like many others before it, has been written out by people with little practical experience of the industry which will have to bear the brunt of implementing it. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No doubt the intentions behind the Order are wholly admirable, but I prefer to use the words spoken in another context by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish)—enough is enough. I do not know what my Front Bench intends to do, but I shall seek to divide the House against the Order.

12.24 a.m.

Mr. David Mitchell (Basingstoke)

To the best of my knowledge, I have no interest to declare in this respect. I agree that it is desirable, if one goes out to a restaurant and orders a carafe of wine, that one should have some idea of the quantity one is going to get. So far as the Order is concerned with that point, most of us would have no objection.

But we are concerned about the curious way in which the Government have set out to detail the sizes of carafes and the quantities which may be sold. A large number of imported bottles do not conform to the size the Minister is laying down. The Order refers to wine taken from a closed container, pre-packed. One assumes that that means a bottle. Therefore, one assumes that the situation he has in mind is where the restaurateur pulls the cork out of a bottle and pours the wine into a carafe so that the customer does not know what he is getting.

For the Order to make sense, the permitted quantity ought to agree with the quantities available in bottles. The normal sherry bottle, for example, taking that as a bottle size, contains 26⅔ fl. oz., therefore why is not 26⅔ fl. oz. in the list? We have 20 fl. oz. listed.

Many French and German wines are imported into this country in 70, 73 and 75 cl bottles. Why has not the Minister put in these alternatives? Or why is he ludicrous enough to define quantities at all? If he has to define them, why does he not put in the quantity in the bottle sold to the restaurateur.

Is the wine waiter expected to drink the balance between the 26⅔ fl. oz. and the 20 fl. oz. that he is allowed to sell? In the case of a 75 cl bottle, is he to put in an eggcupful of water in order to conform to the requirements of the law? The House is entitled to know, since clearly those who drew up the Order have not the foggiest idea what happens in the reality of the restaurant trade.

As to magnums, there is a restaurant in Paris which I cannot afford to patronise and which does very well for the tourist trade by making it a feature that a magnum of wine is served automatically with every meal for two or whatever number of persons there may be. The customers drink as much as they want. That sort of opportunity of attracting tourists to a restaurant by a gimmick is to be denied in this country, apparently, under the terms of the Order, as explained by the Minister to the House.

There are many restaurants which use an empty bottle instead of a carafe. If the empty bottle happens to be one of the many standard sizes imported from abroad, such as 70 or 73 cl, the restaurant will not be able to use it. How non-sensical can the Minister get?

The House is being driven to the conclusion that the Minister must have taken shares in a company either for making new carafes or for smashing old ones. He should take the Order away, smash it, and come back to the House with an Order which lays down that the restaurateur shall print on his menu the quantity of wine he is offering the public, so that the public can be protected from anybody wishing to deceive it. The Minister should not lay down nonsensical details which do not apply in practice.

12.29 a.m.

Mr. Clement Freud (Isle of Ely)

Perhaps it is only right that someone from this Bench, having listened to the talk of magnums, double magnums, rehoboams, jeroboams and nebuchadnezzars, should point out that the great omission is that no provision at all is made for the half-bottle. The half-bottle is a much more popular measure in every sense of the word than the erotic or eclectic measures already described.

I shall certainly oppose the Order, because I think it is lunacy. It is only the beginning of a whole era of total lunacy which awaits us. It sems to me that restauranteurs, if they are to be bound by the law, will have to examine the bottles which they are asked to sell, and that in all cases where they do not conform to these measures they will have to sell them for home consumption. It appears that home consumption in any measure is perfectly permissible.

The Minister should also think of what will happen to the glass industry. Firms are tooled to produce a certain type of bottle. What is to happen when that bottle is no longer allowed in restaurant premises? It will cost a great deal of money to no good purpose.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins (Norfolk, South-West)

A week or so ago, with other hon. Members representing Norfolk constituencies, I spent a day with representatives of the Norfolk County Council listening to their tale of woe about the large number of unnecessary Orders which were being introduced and which they had to administer with a reduced staff at a time when they were being told by the Department of the Environment to cut the number of people whom they employed and to cut the amount of money that they spent.

I believe that wine drinkers in this country can quite well look after themselves and that we are being rather too grandmotherly in laying down all these rules and regulations so that we no longer have any choice. I like to know how much I am drinking. On the other hand, I see no reason why the Government should feel it necessary to rule that wine should be consumed only in certain quantities.

The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) knows more about these matters than I do. He has spoken of the popularity of wine in half-bottles. In this House, unfortunately, it is very difficult to obtain a half-bottle.

I should like to hear the Minister's estimate of the number of additional employees these proposals will result in or, alternatively, how much extra work will be put upon staff already in post. How many carafes will have to be thrown away? How much additional money will it cost the industry to buy new carafes?

In this time of great difficulty for the nation, those are questions which we should ask ourselves before passing such nonsensical legislation.

12.31 a.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)

I should first declare my interest. I am a member of the Scottish Total Abstainers' League, of the Band of Hope Union, and of the Standing Committee which is currently considering the Licensing (Scotland) Bill, and I am the recipient of many abusive letters from brewers and publicans.

But we should take this Order seriously. I have seen an early edition of one of tomorrow's newspapers. It contains a report to the effect that the Government, because of the staffing cuts being imposed on national and local government, are calling upon the Department of Health and Social Security to cut down the numbers of home visits. They are calling upon social work departments to cut down on the number of visits they make. In the Strathclyde Region, which I represent, we are having to cut down on the number of home helps and school crossing patrol attendants because of the restrictions on public spending.

If this Order is to work, it will mean a lot of weights and measures inspectors going round restaurants, public houses and wherever else wine is sold doing some more inspecting. It will involve more work, more overtime and more cost for no good purpose at a time when local government is being told to cut back on staff and on essential services.

The Minister gave no indication that there had been any great demand for this measure. One of the problems of Parliament is that we are far too inclined to interfere with arrangements which are working perfectly well when, instead, we should be interfering with those which are not.

How many people have complained to the Minister about carafes, half-carafes or quarter-carafes of wine sold in restaurants? Can any hon. Member honestly say that people have complained to him about the way that wine is sold in restaurants? I go to restaurants a lot. I am sure that people would be well advised not to take wine at all. In my view, the ideal Order would be one which said that no further wine should be served in this country. It would help our balance of payments, and it would help the health of the nation.

If we go ahead with this proposal, we have to ask ourselves whether it will help. I accept that there is some merit in prescribed quantities for essential commodities like butter, for instance. The housewife buying a half-pound of butter for 17…p in the Co-op or for 18p in Safeway knows that she is paying that sum for a prescribed quantity.

The Minister has presented an impossible kind of measure tonight. Could anyone tell me whether it is better to buy 25 cl. of wine at 69p, or 10 fl. ozs.at 76p? That kind of calculation is difficult to work out, and the kind of people who will be least able to work it out will be those who are supposed to do so—those who may have consumed a litre of wine. How are they going to be in a fit state to take advantage of any protection which the Minister is giving?

Apart from that, the Minister has not the slightest idea how much all this will cost. He does not know the cost of obtaining new carafes, and posting extra notices. This measure is one we can well do without, especially in present economic circumstances. Is this a priority? Is it the kind of thing we must do this year? I suggest that it is a piece of nonsense which gives no protection whatever to the consumer. I doubt whether many consumers will be in a fit state to judge the difference between 25 cl. and 28.4 cl. of wine. We should not just postpone this measure, we should scrap it.

This Order is a nonsense. I hope that the House will throw it out, and tell the Minister not to bring any more silly Orders like this before us.

12.37 a.m.

Mr. Neil Marten (Banbury)

This is a very curious Order to say the least. I think that it is really rather stupid. Why has it been made? It is typical of too much association with Brussels. It is precisely the sort of silly time-wasting thing which happens when we get too involved with the Common Market.

Sir Raymond Gower (Barry)

My hon. Friend is being unfair. Has he ever encountered regulations of this kind in a French restaurant?

Mr. Marten

My hon. Friend has missed the point. I said that this Order was typical of the type of regulation which comes out of Brussels—interfering, busy-bodying legislation. [HON. MEMBERS: "That sounds Socialist."] But the Common Market is Socialist. It is full of Socialists. One of the Commissioners has gone off to fight the election in Italy as a Communist. That is why this sort of thing goes on.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

Will my hon. Friend agree that one of the Commissioners is even thinking of joining the Tory Party?

Mr. Marten

He may be thinking of joining the party, but before that he has to get adopted, which he might find difficult at his age.

I would like to query the total lack of appreciation by the Government of the cost of smashing all the carafes, or whatever will have to be done, and the cost of having inspectors to go around inspecting them all the time. There is a fine of £100, so someone must inspect the carafes before a case can be brought.

We have another Order coming up soon on eviscerated chickens, which will require about 500 veterinary surgeons to carry out inspections. Then the other day we had a water draft directive which requires inspectors of water to go down to the beach and take a sample, and if the water is not pure they have to put up notices saying "Achtung, Bathing Verboten". A terrible amount of bureaucracy is being slipped upon this country and we should be cutting it out.

I come back to the Common Market. There was an Order the other day giving grants for smashing greenhouses in order to cut down on horticulture. If there are grants for smashing greenhouses, why not have grants for smashing carafes? Has the Minister been to Brussels and asked for a grant for that purpose?

Mr. John Fraser

I should like very much to go to Brussels in order to modify the commitment which was entered into by the Conservative Government by which, for example, all imperial units will disappear by the end of 1979. I should like to go but at the moment, under the present arrangements in the House, I am not able to do so.

Mr. Marten

That is absolutely untrue. The hon. Member is allowed to go to Brussels in spite of the arrangements in the House, but provided his party does not bring forward any contentious legislation.

The trouble is that there is too much association with the Common Market. I suggest therefore that the Minister acts in an entirely British way, takes the Order away and thinks again.

12.41 a.m.

Sir Raymond Gower (Barry)

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) invited the House to summon up its courage and throw the Order out. I would prefer the Minister to summon up the courage to withdraw it. That would be the most sensible course in view of the unanswerable arguments that have been adduced against it.

Could the Minister not produce an Order which merely prescribed that the quantity of wine in the bottle should be clearly stated? I understand that we are not committed to this course by agreement with the other EEC countries, so why do the Government not withdraw the Order and come back with another requiring the restaurateur or other seller of wine to ensure that the Quantity of wine is clearly stated?

Mr. Adley

The Order states that the Secretary of State has consulted with organisations appearing to her to be representative of interests substantially affected by this Order". Will my hon. Friend take it from me that members of the British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association will be more affected by the Order than anyone else, and that if they were consulted they objected to it? It is spurious to suggest that those who have been consulted have assented to the proposal.

Sir R. Gower

I did not imply that the proposal had been agreed with anyone. From the inquiries I have made I gather that very little approach has been made to anyone in the industry.

Mr. John Fraser

We consulted 110 trade organisations.

Sir R. Gower

The strange fact is that some of the most important organisations—one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley)—were not properly consulted.

Surely it would be better to secure general agreement on an Order which commands the support both of this House and the industry.

12.43 a.m.

Mr. Giles Shaw (Pudsey)

If the Government are insisting on making Orders which regulate the sale of goods it is vital that they should proceed by agreement. They must indicate two things to the House. First, why was the advice of the organisation referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) rejected'? That body purports to represent a significant proportion of the trade. Second, why was the range of metric and imperial quantities listed selected for this purpose? The list of metric and imperial quantities selected appears to be at variance with what European producers of wine normally purvey in their bottles and clearly at variance with the way in which hotels and restaurants frequently dispense wine, so the Minister has to offer a firm justification for that.

There is nobody in the House who disputes the intention of the Government in seeking to protect the consumer where the consumer is vulnerable. The question is whether the quantity within a carafe is a vulnerable point and whether the price charged is a vulnerable point. Article 2(c) clearly indicates that where prepacked measures are sold, there must be a display of the cost and quantity available at the point of sale, and this is where consumer protection should start and possibly end. Whether a consumer is about to buy a carafe of wine or a Bath bun, he or she should clearly have available information that allows him or her to make a value judgment. The value judgment depends on two things—the price being asked and some designation as to the quality of the product.

I can think of no more contentious issue than the suggestion that in the matter of the sale of wine the question of the quality of the product is irrelevant, because quality seems more than anything else to determine the price at which the wine will be sold. If the Minister of State seeks to offer a carafe of vintage claret, it does not matter significantly what the quantity is; what matter crucially are the quality and price thereof.

The Minister of State should give greater justification than he has so far. How did this list of measures come about? Why did not that trade organisation support it? How is it related to European producers? Above all, in the matter of price, where the consumer is at risk, why cannot notification of the price and the quantity be sufficient and the carafe be after all the irrelevant container it is?

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern)

I thought that we were getting near the end of the debate.

12.48 a.m.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

I shall be very short, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

What concerns me about the Order is the effect that it may have on manners at the table. Although I did not go to a public school, I know that a number of Labour Members went to Winchester, or have children who went to Winchester or who are going to Winchester, where the motto is "Manners maketh man".

What concerns me, having heard all the objections from my hon. Friends about the many difficulties that will be facing restaurateurs who have bottles of wine imported from foreign lands with capacities different from those laid down in the Order is that the owners of some bistros or restaurants, some very respectable, would go for advice to a lawyer to see how they could best save themselves the vast sums of money that might otherwise be involved. Referring to Article 2(2)(b) the lawyer would say that it was a defence, as it were, because it is excluded from the Order, for wine to be sold in capacities other than those laid down in the order if it is sold in the glass or other vessel from which it is intended to be drunk.

A restaurateur may be advised to tell his customers when there is an inspector in the place "Drink straight out of the carafe". I view that possibility with a great deal of anxiety. Red wine has a habit of staining if it gets on a white shirt or a lady's dress. I cannot imagine taking my wife to a bistro where there is candlelight and where at the call of an imperious inspector everybody has to hold up a carafe and swig directly out of it.

Mr. David Mitchell

Would it be a defence for someone to provide a carafe, of whatever size, with a number of straws in it, according to the number of clients at the table? Would it not then be clear that the wine was meant to be drunk from that vessel?

Mr. Lawrence

My hon. Friend has made a constructive suggestion for which I am grateful. If anyone comes to me for advice, I shall be able to offer that constructive suggestion. However, straws tend not to last long and people may have to revert to tipping up the carafe and risk spilling wine on their clothes.

Paragraph 3 concerns me because it provides for an automatic penalty without any defence. There is no room for the occupier to say in court that he did not know there was insufficient wine in a carafe, that it was a quarter of an inch too low to qualify.

This is a particular problem in the catering trade because so many waiters are foreign nationals who work here for a short period, with or without a work permit, and do not understand the language or the rules. They might completely misunderstand the effect of the Order.

Mr. Adley

Can my hon. Friend advise the House, in his legal capacity, whether there is a danger in the words: the occupier of the premises in question shall be guilty of an offence. in paragraph 3 because it is highly unlikely that the occupier will be the owner? Is it not possible that, as the Order is worded, an occupier might be in contravention of his lease with the owner and that this might lead to all sorts of legal difficulties?

Mr. Lawrence

My hon. Friend has declared his interest in the hotel trade. If he cares to consult me in my professional capacity, when I can properly charge a fee to supplement my meagre return as an hon. Member, I shall be delighted to give him advice. It would be quite wrong for me to give free legal advice in the House of which anyone could take advantage.

This is a serious matter. There may be restaurateurs who are led to break this law because of the actions of waiters who do not read or speak our language well and who do not understand the rules.

I represent a constituency which is world famous for its beer and the pints it provides for millions of ordinary men and women. I think I heard the Minister say—and I shall be grateful if he will correct me if I am wrong—that the pint may be phased out in future. It is of great concern to my constituents and others that, whatever else goes, the pint should be safeguarded.

12.55 a.m.

Mr. Robert Banks (Harrogate)

I had not meant to intervene in the debate but I am moved to do so because the Minister has clearly come to the House tonight hoping to slip this Order quietly through.

It is apparent to a great number of hon. Members by the Minister's arrogance when he stated that 110 organisations had been consulted, as though that were some seal of approval over the Order. However, it has been discovered by my hon. Friends that of the two organisations which dissented from the proposals contained in this measure, one was the British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association, one of the largest and most important representative organisations in Britain. It was with some arrogance that the Minister neglected to mention that to the House. It was only mentioned by the chance of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), who drew the attention of the House to that fact.

What I take exception to, however, is the fact that the consumers have been ignored. What have the consumers to say about this? These proposals state that there will be six different sizes of measure that could be obtained in a restaurant. How many consumers has the Minister consulted as to the optimum measure of wine that they would like to drink, either in carafe form or half carafe form? The whole Order becomes all the more ridiculous by the fact that once again consumers have been left on one side, and they will be confronted with this number of mysterious sizes which they may or may not order.

Consumers will no doubt compare prices between one size and another. The differences between the sizes are not very large. Comparing each size, the difference in the amount of wine is relatively small. The average person who orders a carafe of wine and chooses a particular size may be confused by the price charged for it, let alone the fact that the actual wine in the carafe is the all-important substance that is to be drunk, and the cost of the wine depends on the quality of the wine. Therefore, consumers will be thoroughly confused by these different sizes. Different restaurants may adopt different sizes. The consumer will not be able to order a carafe or half carafe of wine and know exactly where he stands.

What is important, however, is that a restaurant stands on its reputation for the quality of wine that it serves. In many cases the carafe wine is the symbol of the restaurant. If it serves a good carafe wine at a reasonable price, that is what brings in the customers.

I hope that the Minister will see the sense of the arguments that have been put forward and take away this Order to reconsider it. This is not a time to start producing legislation which will mean that more inspectors will have to make more inspections, and that a small or large restaurant must consider the size of every carafe it has, present the carafes and measure them out in front of the inspector. This means more paper work for the inspector and more expense in producing new carafes to meet the terms of the Order if it is approved. I ask the Minister to withdraw the Order.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans)

I should at once declare an interest in that, in such little time as I have to spare when I am not in the House, I am a director of a company that runs restaurants, wine bars and pubs. I think that in the main the company sells wine by bottles or half bottles or by the glass, rather than in carafes.

However, I have much sympathy with what has just been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks). He pointed out quite clearly that this Order is a nonsense, as we are talking about a quantity, and if that were related to a particular quality and then a price, people would know where they stood. However, one simply does not know where one stands. It makes no difference what size the carafe is or what the price is, because what matters to the person concerned is the quality of the wine and whether he is getting good or bad wine.

It is different when it comes to spirits. People know, when they talk about a third of a gill or a half-gill of spirits, just how much they are getting. They know that spirits are 50 per cent., 60 per cent., or 70 per cent. proof and that they are getting a particular strength of drink. They also know the price that they are paying. All that means something to people.

However, it is a different matter when it comes to a particular quantity of wine, the quality of which one knows not until one drinks it, and the price of which appears on the menu or the wine list.

I was training to be a chartered accountant before the war before going into the Royal Air Force. One phrase that I remember is caveat emptor—he buyer beware. Do not the Government trust the British people to know?

I know the restaurants— [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway do not know anything about these matters. I know the restaurants which serve small carafes. I know the restaurants which have earthenware carafes so that customers cannot see how much wine they contain. However, it is easy to tell by the number of glasses of wine that one can get out of such a carafe. I know the size of a glass and whether I am getting reasonably good wine or not. I do not patronise restaurants where I think I am being done. I go to those where I think I get good value. That is what people should be allowed to know.

Sir Raymond Gower

My hon. Friend referred to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway not knowing about these matters. Is he aware that some of the finest wines are drunk in Left-Wing intellectual circles?

Mr. Goodhew

That may be so. Otherwise, we should not hear such remarkable views expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

My point is that one knows the measure and the proof of spirits and can compare the price. But when it comes to wine, it is difficult to assess the size of the carafe and the number of glasses of wine one will get from it.

The Government should trust the people. They should recognise that this Order is nonsense. The Government should keep out of this matter and trust the people for a change. They would save a lot of the time of this House if they would think along those lines.

1.3 a.m.

Mr. Tim Rathbone (Lewes)

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), I should like to point out that we are getting near the last round. The Minister must have an opportunity to reply to the debate.

Mr. Rathbone

I should like to point out that uniquely no one has spoken in favour of the Order. Every comment has been against it. If the Minister will not now consult the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State will not consult the Leader of the House with a view to providing time to bring in a better Order than this one, we are making a nonsense of free debate in the House of Commons.

1.4 a.m.

Mr. John Fraser

First, I should like to disabuse the mind of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). This Order has nothing to do with the European Economic Community. It is a national.—[Interruption.] I assure the hon. Gentleman, who sometimes worries about these matters, that we need not enter into further debate about that subject, because the Order has nothing to do with the European Economic Community. This is a national consumer protection measure.

Mr. Freud

rose—

Mr. Fraser

I do not propose to give way at this stage.

The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) asked about the pint. In my opening remarks I said that it was slightly confusing to have measures laid down in this Order dealing with the sale of wine in carafes in both the metric and imperial ranges. I think that it would be better, when we prescribe completely new ranges for quantities, to prescribe them in one range, not in a dual range, because the single range will provide a greater degree of consumer protection.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no earthly reason why, in practice, a pint of beer should not continue to be sold as a pint of beer. I hope that that will reassure the brewers in his constituency.

Mr. Lawrence

And the drinkers.

Mr. Fraser

And the drinkers. As we are laying down a new range of measures, it would be better to lay down one range rather than have to lay down a dual range.

In my opening remarks I described what was meant by an open container. I used the word carafe as a shorthand phrase. It could be a glass container, an earthenware container or even a plastic container. I used the word carafe as a shorthand expression, but it combines any measure in which wine is sold at the table and from which one would not normally expect the customers to drink. Apparently some Conservative Members live in the company of those who go into restaurants with straws and drink from carafes, but we are talking about the generality of people who follow the normal convention and pour wine from a carafe into a glass.

I say to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Lamont) that one has under consideration prescribing quantities for glasses because it is possible to rook members of the public by varying the size of the glass. That is not the subject of the Order, but if there were a requirement for it one would consider prescribing a range.

Mr. Freud

What most of us are concerned about is that if this is a measure for consumer protection, the sort of protection that we need is for the quality of the drink, and not the quantity that may or not be given. It is much more important to have this Order combining quality and quantity, rather than separating them.

Mr. Fraser

I take the point, and it would be attractive if one could easily prescribe standards of quality as well as quantity, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will he the first to agree that they are not mutually exclusive. It is notoriously and extraordinarily difficult to prescribe by regulation a range of quality, and the trade would object considerably if there were that degree of legislative interference.

I turn to the point made by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr Adley) and others about consultations with the trade. We have consulted 110 trade organisations, and two—the Brewers Society and the British Hotels Restaurants and Caterers Association—objected to the ranges being prescribed. The other 108 agreed with the ranges laid down in the Order. In addition, contrary to the views of all the Conservative Members who have spoken, not one trade organisation opposed the principle of the Order. The only dispute was in relation to the sizes that were to be prescribed.

Mr. Adley

Can the hon. Gentleman not understand that the principle of consumer protection is not in dispute? What most of us are concerned about is that the method of this Order brings the consumer legislation into disrepute, and that when he produces an Order such as this and does nothing to lay down how much should or should not be in the glass when wine is sold by the glass, the whole proposal is patently ludicrous, as has been shown by a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends?

Mr. Fraser

The next point that I want—

Mr. Adley

Answer that point.

Mr. Fraser

I do not think that it would be productive to go over the ground again. The Order is no different in principle from many other Orders that have been laid before the House prescribing a minimum range of quantities.

Mr. Norman Lamont

The Minister said that he had consulted the British Hotels Restaurants and Caterers Association, and that not one association that he had consulted had objected to the principle of the Order. Has he not seen the Association's memorandum in which it said: Whilst the Association is, in principle, in favour of helping the consumer, it can see no need whatsoever for statutorily prescribing specified quantities for the sale of wine in carafes in restaurants.

Mr. Fraser

If I have in any way misled the House I will gladly withdraw but my understanding—I am glad to defer to what the hon. Gentleman has said when he quoted from the memorandum—is that the preponderance of opinion was certainly in favour of the principle of making the Order.

I have a letter from the British Hotels Restaurants and Caterers Association and I do not think it complains about the degree of consultation which has taken place. It says: We are naturally disappointed that you have been unable to adopt the Association's representations but I am grateful to you for having considered them so thoroughly with your legal advisers". I do not think there has been any complaint about the degree of consultation which has taken place.

The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) asked me a question about half-bottles. As he is about to leave the chamber perhaps it does not need an answer. There is nothing in the Order which debars the sale of a half-bottle of wine if it is in the bottle. I think the hon. Gentleman was confusing the sale of wine in bottles with the sale of wine in carafes.

In respect of whether the size of the carafe ought to be related to the size of the bottle of wine there was some suggestion that as well as prescribing the quarter-litre, the half-litre, the three-quarter-litre, and the whole litre, that we should prescribe other sizes. In fact, 70 cl. and 73 cl. were the figures suggested by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell).The reason we have not done this but have laid down a simple range of quantities is that each one has a simple arithmetical relationship with the other. It makes it easier for the consumer to be able to calculate comparable prices and, in practice, there is no reason why the carafe, or other open measure, should relate to the size of the original bottle. The hon. Member for Basingstoke, who knows the trade very well, gave some examples of wine bottles with contents of 70 cl and 73 cl, but many carafe wines are served from other containers not just from bottles but from plastic sacks and barrels which come in all sizes? It would be difficult to relate the range of minimum sizes for carafes to the range of bottles.

Mr. David Mitchell

rose—

Mr. Fraser

I am sorry, but I have given way a great deal. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite suggested that there would have to be—

Mr. David Mitchell

rose—

Mr. Fraser

Some hon. Members suggested that carafes would have to be thrown away and that there would have to be some kind of mass destruction process. That is not so. One of the purposes of consulting trade organisations has been to avoid that particular kind of lunacy.

Mr. David Mitchell

rose—

Mr. Fraser

I am advised that most carafes are already made in the appropriate sizes.

Other hon. Members opposite objected to the cost of this operation. I can tell the House that local enforcement authorities already visit hotel and restaurant premises on routine inspections and it is not likely that any great additional effort will be involved. Indeed, the enforcement authorities themselves are the people who serve as officers of the elected local authorities and they are people who have the interest of the consumer very much at heart. They are entirely at variance with the views of hon. Members opposite about the protection of the consumer. Enforcement authorities employed by municipalities support the purpose of the Order.

The Order has been drafted to give a degree of protection to the consumer. Anyone who thinks about the matter will realise that, unless we have a prescribed range of quantities, it is possible to dupe, cheat and mislead members of the public. I do not suggest that a large number of hoteliers, caterers or restaurateurs do such a thing. Of course that is not the case. In most cases, one passes consumer legislation to deal with the very small minority who may be misleading the public.

If hon. Members opposite are complaining about cost and bureaucratic interference, what they are saying is that those who drink wine by the carafe should be denied the consumer protection which is accorded to the person who orders a pint of beer or a measure of spirits in a public house. We intend to give the consumer of the carafe of wine precisely the same protection as that now enjoyed by ordinary people drinking in pubs. I reject the arrogance of hon. Members opposite, who believe that a certain class of consumer should have no protection.

1.17 a.m.

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Woolwich, West)

It is with great sorrow that the House has heard that attempted explanation by the Minister. On the principles of consumer protection, one can see a case for requiring those who sell wine to state the quantity of wine they are selling. There is general agreement that that is a healthy aim, and that it might be reasonable as a statutory requirement although it is not in the Order—for view. There also might be an argument—although it is not in the Order—for unit pricing for wine, for stating plainly on a wine list the price of the beverage per pint or per litre.

But there is no argument at all—and the Minister made it plain that he could not think of one—for laying down that one may sell wine with the cork out or in a carafe only in five or six particular sizes.

Mr. David Mitchell

I should like to reinforce my hon. Friend's point by drawing the Minister's attention to the fact that if he orders a carafe of wine in the Members' Dining Room, he will be given a bottle of wine tipped into a carafe. When the Order is passed it will not be possible to tip that bottle into a carafe because it will not be the right size. An additional bottle will have to be opened and a good deal of it will be wasted. Will the Minister make good the deficit?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member knows that he is not addressing the Minister at this stage. His hon. Friend gave way to him.

Mr. Bottomley

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that piece of information, of which I was unaware. I am not one of those who spend their time drinking wine, from the carafe or the bottle, in this place, because one finds much more entertainment in the Chamber, especially on a Statutory Instrument such as this. This is no fault of the Minister. His translation from a previous employment has made him responsible for what I can only describe as a load of rubbish.

The principle of consumer protection we have accepted. The principle of laying down the quantity of wine we have accepted. What we cannot accept and what I hope we shall not accept is the argument that these five units of carafes or open-ended containers should be forced on this House.

The Minister was unwilling to give way during his reply, even though there were 18 minutes left for debate. What was he frightened about? Was he frightened of the arguments that have been used against the Order, or was it just that he could not be bothered to explain why most of the Order is in print?

We can sum up what the House ought to do with the Order. First of all we should ask the Minister, in the remaining minutes of the debate, to withdraw the Order. It he does not have the courtesy to do that, the House should have no hesitation in throwing it out.

1.22 a.m.

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask your guidence on a question relating to the legality of this Order? It will be within your recollection that the Minister volunteered the information that he was under an obligation, under the 1963 Weights and Measures Act, to provide that any such measure offered the option of imperial or metric units. Despite that, the Order provides that > there shall be four metric measurements but only two imperial measurements. That means that the option is not open to the restaurateur to provide either a metric or imperial unit in each case. There is the 25 cl. the 75 cl. or 1-litre measurement, where the only imperial options are 10 fl. oz. and 20 fl. oz. According the Minister's statement this Order does not satisfy the conditions laid down by the 1963 Act. I would submit, therefore, that it is out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The position is simple. I am no lawyer, and I will not ask the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) for advice because he would charge me. The Order is before the House. Its contents are known to hon. Members and they can either accept or or reject it.

1.23 a.m.

Mr. John Hannam (Exeter)

I have one further point to put to the Minister in connection with the limitation on the size of the carafe which is to be used. Earlier the Minister gave an answer referring to the limitation of 1 litre. I do not know whether he is aware that in a number of restaurants, certainly in the past few years, there has been the introduction of a system used largely in countries such as Austria or Switzerland whereby, when there is a party of four or six people, a large, attractive carafe in a wrought iron container is provided, certainly much larger than a litre, from which people can draw their wine. I see from the look on the Minister's face that he is aware of such a practice.

It would be totally wrong for an Order like this to restrict restaurants in this country to the 1-litre limitation. I am sure that not very far from this House one could go to a number of Swiss and Austrian-type restaurants where this type of carafe is commonly used. On that ground alone I would reject the Order.

There is also the question of the liberty of the individual raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). Article 3(1) says that the occupier of premises shall be guilty of an offence if the Order's provisions are contravened. I know from my experience in the restaurant business that often a foreign wine waiter is called upon to serve from, say, a 1-litre carafe, a half or quarter of the measure laid down in the Order. Mistakes can be made. The occupier will be guilty of an offence and subject to a fine not exceeding £100 on summary conviction. This is wrong and

an offence against the individual. I hope that the House will reject the Order.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 174. Noes 32.

Division No. 189.]	AYES	1.26 a.m.
Allaun, Frank	Golding, John	Owen, Dr David
Archer, Peter	Gould, Bryan	Palmer, Arthur
Armstrong, Ernest	Grant, George (Morpeth)	Park, George
Ashton, Joe	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Parry, Robert
Atkinson, Norman	Hardy, Peter	Pavitt, Laurie
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Harper, Joseph	Pendry, Tom
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Prescott, John
Bates, Alt	Hart, Rt Hon Judith	Price, William (Rugby)
Bean, R. E.	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	Radice, Giles
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood	Hatton, Frank	Richardson, Miss Jo
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Heffer, Eric S.	Ridsdale, Julian
Bidwell, Sydney	Howell, Rt Hon Denis	Robinson, Geoffrey
Bishop, E. S.	Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)	Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Huckfield, Les	Rooker, J. W.
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Hunter, Adam	Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)	Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)	Rowlands, Ted
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Sandelson, Neville
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Sedgemore, Brian
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)	John, Brynmor	Selby, Harry
Buchan, Norman	Jones, Barry (East Flint)	Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Buchanan, Richard	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Judd, Frank	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Canavan, Dennis	Kaufman, Gerald	Silverman, Julius
Carmichael, Neil	Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Small, William
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Kinnock, Neil	Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Cartwright, John	Lamborn, Harry	Snape, Peter
Clemitson, Ivor	Lamond, James	Spearing, Nigel
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)	Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)	Stallard, A. W.
Cohen, Stanley	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Coleman, Donald	Loyden, Eddie	Strang, Gavin
Concannon, J. D.	Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)	Swain, Thomas
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)	Mabon, Dr J. Dickson	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	McCartney, Hugh	Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)	McElhone, Frank	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Cryer, Bob	MacFarquhar, Roderick	Tinn, James
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)	Mackenzie, Gregor	Urwin, T. W.
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)	Maclennan, Robert	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Dalyell, Tam	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)	McNamara, Kevin	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Deakins, Eric	Madden, Max	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Dempsey, James	Magee, Bryan	Watkins, David
Dormand, J. D.	Mahon, Simon	Watkinson, John
Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Mallalieu, J. P. W.	Wellbeloved, James
Eadie, Alex	Marks, Kenneth	Welsh, Andrew
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	White, Frank R. (Bury)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)	Meacher, Michael	White, James (Pollok)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)	Mellish, Rt Hon Robert	Whitehead, Phillip
Evans, John (Newton)	Millan, Bruce	Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Ewing Harry (Stirling)	Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)	Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Flannery, Martin	Molloy, William	Williams, Sir Thomas
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick	Woodall, Alec
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)	Newens, Stanley	Young, David (Bolton E)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)	Noble, Mike
Freeson, Reginald	Oakes, Gordon	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Garrett, John (Norwich S)	O'Halloran, Michael	Mr. Ted Graham and
George, Bruce	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Mr. David Stoddart.
Gilbert, Dr John	Ovenden, John
NOES
Banks, Robert	Goodhew, Victor	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Bottomley, Peter	Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)	Moate, Roger
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)	Gray, Hamish	Penhaligon, David
Brittan, Leon	Grylls, Michael	Rathbone, Tim
Brotherton, Michael	Hampson, Dr Keith	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)	Hannam, John	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Durant, Tony	Hawkins, Paul	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Freud, Clement	Lawrence, Ivan	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Glyn, Dr Alan	Marten, Neil	Skeet, T. H. H.
Skinner, Dennis	Wiggin, Jerry	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)	Winterton, Nicholas	Mr. Robert Adley and
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)		Mr. Robert Hicks

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That the Weights and Measures (Sale of Wine) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.