WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 19 December 1960 vol 227 cc717-832

3.56 p.m.

House again in Committee.

LORD HAWKE moved, in paragraph 1 (2), after ("swine") to insert: "goats, deer, kangaroos." The noble Lord said, We now come to the lists of beasts who are honoured in this Bill as having to have their flesh sold by weight—and a strange list it is. Cattle, sheep, swine, certainly; horses, perhaps; but asses and mules, my Lords! Do we eat asses and mules, or are Her Majesty's Government privy to some dark secret of the canners' art which is mercifully hidden from the rest of us? But if we are to have these strange beasts, why not let us have others which, if anything, are less strange. There is the deer, a noble animal, not only the monarch of the glen which arouses some of the noble Lords on this side to such a pitch of forensic fury at times, but his workaday cousin who in far Lapland is probably, even now, preparing for his annual Christmas Eve dash? And may I remind your Lordships that the flesh of the reindeer was not unknown in Smithfield in the days when the Party of the noble Lords opposite had charge of our larder?

Then there is the goat, for many a long year hallowed as one of the favourite dishes of the patriarchs. Then, last, we come to the kangaroo. We know of the position which he often occupies in the stanzas of the nursery poets. His very shape and habits subject him to ribaldry, but to the Australians the kangaroo is not at all a ribald subject. He is a scourge and devastator of their best pastures. I was happy to read not long ago that those enterprising people our Australian cousins had decided they must try to turn the kangaroo into an article of commercial food, and that they had made distinctly promising progress by shipping kangaroo to the markets of the Far East. Well, what Osaka eats to-day, Manchester may eat to-morrow and London the day after. But seriously, if we are to help our Australian cousins to resolve this great problem, would not it be a good idea, from a propaganda point of view, if we included kangaroos along with asses and mules as meat which the Government think should be subject to weighing before sale? I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 1, line 14, after ("swine") insert ("goats, deer, kangaroos,").—(Lord Hawke.)

LORD SALTOUN

I believe that I have already eaten kangaroo in London. Would it not be better to put here the words "any mammal"? Is a kangaroo a mammal?

LORD HAWKE

I carefully considered the particular point made by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, but to do that would be to bring in the flesh of the whale; and I do not regard that as very desirable.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I once went to a dinner in Victoria, Vancouver Island, with a well-known Canadian regiment. There were three meat courses: one was buffalo, one was elk and one was bear. The bear was much the so far as I remember. There are all kinds of animals which could be brought in. I thought at first that it looked odd to include asses and mules, but I found that this is because the definition of "horse flesh", given in Section 24 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, includes asses and mules. I am informed that quite an appreciable amount of horse meat is sold for human consumption and it is necessary to ensure that it is correctly defined in this part of the Fifth Schedule. The other animals which my noble friend mentions are not sold in very considerable quantities; not even venison. I think that perhaps more venison is given away than is sold, and perhaps more of it is buried than is eaten. I do not know. But there have been suggestions in the past for requiring other classes of meat—for example, rabbits and game—to be sold by weight; and they are perhaps more widely consumed than the creatures named in the Amendment. But in all these cases the Government do not think that the volume and nature of the trade justifies their inclusion.

LORD SHACKLETON

I wonder why the noble Earl decides that it is necessary to bring in asses and mules when he has just told us, so far as I can understand, that "horses" include asses and mules.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

No; it is a definition which we are repeating. The definition in Section 24 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, includes horse flesh, asses and mules.

LORD SHACKLETON

Then why repeat the definition? I am also a little surprised that the Government, who are taking quite a lot of powers to make orders, are not taking powers to include some of these other animals, particularly rabbits. And I am slightly surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, refuses to regard a whale as meat. I expect that most of your Lordships have eaten whale at some time or another—I admit that it was during the time of an earlier Government—and there are many other animals. I have eaten walrus; I have eaten bear;

I have eaten fox. They are not foxes of the kind we have here; they are blue foxes. I have not committed any heinous crime. But why do the Government not take powers to name as meat any mammal or marsupial?

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I am sure that most of your Lordships prefer to eat venison rather than horses, asses or mules. I feel that I must cross swords with my noble friend when he says that venison is not largely sold. Certainly most estates in Scotland would find it difficult to make ends meet if they could not sell venison. I admit that nowadays a lot goes to Germany. It shows that the Germans have somewhat better taste in this matter than we do.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I was going to mention to my noble friend the Duke of Atholl that, so far as I knew, most of the venison we are selling now goes to Germany; and I agree that this may indicate that the Germans have better taste than we have. The fact is that the amount of venison sold in this country is not, in our view, considerable enough to justify its inclusion. But the Committee may like to know that, under Clause 22 (2) of this Bill, the Board can make an order including any other kind of meat.

LORD HAWKE

I thank my noble friend for his explanation, and I am glad to see that, should any of these more exotic beasts find its way to the market in appreciable quantities, he will be able to decide that it should be sold by weight. I am a little disappointed that he has not met my point about propaganda for kangaroos, because that would obviously be very helpful to Australia. However, with his explanation I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD STONHAMmoved to leave out paragraph 2 and to insert: 2. Subject to paragraph 5 of this Part of this Schedule, any goods to which this Part of this Schedule applies including pre-packed goods shall be sold only be net weight". The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 88, standing in the name of my noble friends and myself. I would suggest that it runs with Amendment 89, and perhaps it would be convenient to discuss the two together. This is the first of a number of Amendments which we shall move with the object of establishing the consumer's entitlement to true net weight, wherever this can be done without imposing such hardships on distributors as to make the proposal impracticable.

I do not think anyone would argue against the principle that if a housewife buys one pound of meat, and pays the price for it, she expects, and is entitled to get, a pound of meat, But this clause as it now stands violates that principle, because it introduces an entirely new element into the meat trade: the element of a wrapper allowance. At present, no meat, whether pre-packed or not, has a wrapper allowance, and it is difficult to understand why the Government have introduced one in direct opposition to the very strong advice of the Hodgson Committee. Indeed, it is also strongly against the opinion of the Consumer Advisory Council, which is a department of the British Standards Institute, and therefore one to whose opinion I should have thought the Government would have paid great heed. I would mention also that the Produce Prepacking Development Association do not support container allowances.

I would remind the Committee that the Hodgson Committee, in paragraph 251 of their Report, said: We feel strongly that any violation of the principle of sale by net weight is, in theory at least, thoroughly undesirable". They consider that in some cases, for hygienic reasons, wrapper allowances might be necessary where commodities are wrapped up by the shopkeeper in the customer's presence, but not if pre-packed elsewhere. Of course, meat is one of the few commodities which it is still largely the practice to weigh out in the shop. But, even so, The Hodgson Committee said: We do not consider that wrapper allowances should he given in retail sales of butchers' meat. That is common sense and common justice, because if butchers put wrappers of any significant weight on the scale it is easy, with the graduated scales now in use, to make proper allowance for them. But, of course, the most common practice in a butcher's shop (and virtually this is the only possible justification for an allowance here) is to put on a paper back or a piece of greaseproof paper which weighs only a few grains, possibly 1/200th part of an ounce. Ordinary retailers' scales are not accurate enough to weigh that.

But surely it is no hardship to supply a piece of paper without charging it up as meat. In fact what this allowance will mean is that retailers will be getting something like 4s. to 5s. a lb. for paper which they can charge up when they charge gross weight. Indeed, one wonders what kind of advice, or who, is being served—what kind of trader is being served—by the grant of wrapper allowances where none has operated before. It seems to me that it can advantage only the less reputable chain grocery stores, because where commodities are pre-packed as they are in factories (and, of course, our Amendment includes pre-packed goods) there is no difficulty in supplying net weight because modern equipment is perfectly capable of weighing the correct amount into the packet: and even where it is more convenient to weigh the goods after packaging, it is a simple matter to make allowance for wrappers of easily ascertainable standard weights. This is, indeed, exactly what happens now in all efficient packaging firms and in chain stores. In Sainsbury's self-service stores, for example, all meat, chickens, sausages, ham, bacon and cheese are tare weighed at present; the housewife is buying net weight, and she knows it.

There are, in fact, no practical difficulties in the way of selling meat, either weighed in the shop or, pre-packed, by net weight. It always has been—or, at least, always should have been—sold in that way. The Government's proposal under this Bill makes the housewife's position worse and not better, and it is therefore, in my submission, totally unacceptable. There can be no justification whatever for asking consumers to pay for meat when they are, in fact, paying for paper and cardboard. I therefore ask your Lordships to support this Amendment calling for true net weight, and I ask the Government to accept it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 61, line 15, leave out paragraph 2 and insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Stonham.)

4.12 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

The Amendment proposes that meat which is sold loose shall be sold by net weight, and also that pre-packed meat shall be sold by net weight. As for unpre-packed meat, the object of allowing it to be sold by gross weight is to permit the butcher to put a small sheet of greaseproof paper on the goods platform of his scales before weighing the meat so as to avoid making the platform messy and the need to wipe it at frequent intervals. The meats which are covered by this schedule include cooked and processed meats, as well as fresh meat and offals, and sale by gross weight would make it possible for some ham or tongue to be weighed after some liver without the need for the trader to clean the platform of his scale immediately beforehand. I think this is particularly important nowadays, when traders are increasing so much the variety of the goods which they sell.

On page 71, Part XIII, the container weights permitted are set out. Table A is the Table which applies to paper wrappers. For weights not exceeding 1 lb., 2½ drams is the maximum permitted, and, for weights exceeding 1 lb., it is a weight at the rate of 2½ drams per lb. of the gross weight, which is really what I think the noble Lord and all of us would call a very inconsiderable amount. It is only 1 per cent. of a 1 lb. weight; and even if the amount being sold was only ½lb., where a maximum of 2½ drams would be permitted, that is still only 2 per cent. of the net weight. I think that it is not only a very inconsiderable amount but a very small price to pay for the additional hygiene and additional speed with which the customer can be served if this is done. Although, strictly speaking, such wrappers are not allowed under existing legislation, many traders do, in fact, make it a custom in the interest of cleanliness, to put a piece of greaseproof paper on the scales.

With regard to pre-packed goods, this Bill does not require pre-packed articles to be sold by weight because a retailer cannot know the weight of the contents, and verify them, without unpacking the goods. What he is required to do under the Bill is to sell the goods, when they are pre-packed, with an accurate marking of the weight of the contents inside the container. In Clause 27, provision is made for such a weight marking put on by the supplier at the packing plant to be a warranty on which the retailer can rely, provided that he has taken all reasonable precautions to see that he has done nothing unusual to falsify it.

LORD STONHAM

To sum up the noble Earl's reply, it seems to be on two points. The first is that the object is to permit the butcher to put a piece of greaseproof paper on the scale in the interests of hygiene. Of course, that is exactly what most of them do now. But it seems to me that, for that tiny thing, we are sacrificing, or are going a long way towards sacrificing, a very important point of principle. There are three schedules of allowances for containers, and some of the allowances, for other produce, are very much heavier than the one which the noble Earl has mentioned. I said earlier that this discussion is really on the whole principle of net weight. We are introducing this elaborate machinery of container charges which is not, so far as I am aware, supported by a single responsible body representing consumers—and, indeed, is strongly opposed by those impartial and experienced bodies that I have mentioned. It seems to me unthinkable that that can be the only reason.

The second point put forward by the noble Earl was that this includes pre-packed meats, which will, of course, be in containers. But, as I pointed out, almost all the firms concerned (certainly all the efficient firms) do weigh net contents. Either they weigh before the goods are packed or, if they weigh after packing, they weigh on graduated scales so as to ensure that the weight is the net weight, which they then mark on the wrapper. The noble Earl indicated that, under Clause 27, the retailer will be able to rely on a warranty, with this class of goods. But many shops, particularly the big self-service stores, it will be utterly impossible and will completely hold up business if all these pre-packed articles of food—meat, and so on—have to be weighed again each time a customer buys them. If I may say so, the noble Earl cannot have it both ways. I am sure he will agree with me that the retailer is not going to weigh these things again: he is going to rely on the net weight on the packet, and on his warranty—and that is what we all want, in the interests of the consumers as well, so that there is service by way of speed in handling. So I must repeat, with all respect, that the noble Earl's answer is no justification whatever for a container allowance, and no justification for a rejection of this Amendment. I hope that he will look at those arguments again and will consider the matter very seriously.

LORD FARINGDON

I am a little puzzled by the figures which the noble Earl has given. I take his point perfectly, that it is an aid to cleanliness to put a piece of greaseproof paper on the weighing machine first of all, but I understand that the allowance for the amount of wrapper in respect of 1 lb. gross weight is 2½ drams. Now I am informed that it is very common for the amount of ham sold as a single lot to be 2 oz. On this, of course, the percentage, if you still allow 2½ drams, would be nearly 8 per cent., which is very considerably more than the noble Earl said, and, I would suggest, more than is necessary.

4.20 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I do not know whether it would be practicable to scale down the minimum weights allowed for very small quantities. I should have thought it almost inconceivable that 2 oz. of meat could be wrapped up in so large a piece of paper that it would amount to 8 per cent. of the weight, but I will certainly look into that. With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, I am sure he knows that I always look at his arguments afterwards, and I am sure he always looks at mine. From what he said about the second part of the argument in relation to pre-packed meat, it seems to me that his Amendment does exactly what the Government is doing in this Bill. We both want to avoid the meat's being taken out of the pack and weighed at the time. We both want the customer to be informed of the weight of that which is inside the container. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding about the exact meaning of "sold by net weight", and of the customer being informed of the net weight. But so long as we both have the same objective in view, perhaps there is no need to pursue that now.

LORD STONHAM

I do not think I have made myself clear. What I mean when I say "sold by net weight" in relation to pre-packed goods is that the weight marked on the container shall be the net weight of the contents exclusive of the net weight of the package. I am saying that it is a perfectly proper and ordinary process, which is going on all the time with all the leading chain stores and packers, and that—

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I agree with the noble Lord, but that is not quite what is meant by "sold by net weight". The article is not being sold by so much a pound; it is being sold as a package, and on it is marked the net weight, and the consumer must be informed of the net weight. I think we are both trying to do the same thing.

LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER

The noble Earl referred to the net weight of the package; that is, the product and the package. What does he mean by the net weight of the package? In supporting my noble friend, Lord Stonham, I would point out that, as he rightly says, it has always been the practice to sell meat or bacon, or other kinds of meat of a similar nature, by net weight. To introduce legislation which legalises the charge for the package in which the meat is served would be a very serious step to take. It is not just the case of a thin piece of greaseproof paper; before very long people would invent some kind of paper which was quite heavy, and use it in large quantities.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

We were talking about pre-packed meat. The noble Lord is now talking of meat which is not pre-packed but sold in greaseproof paper. I agree with what he says there.

LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER

In the pre-packed meat trade, which these days is growing tremendously, it is the universal practice, not only in this country but generally over the United States of America, to put the net weight of the meat—not the weight of the meat and the package—on the container when it is sold at the point of sale. I have in my hand now a wrapper for New Zealand lamb, which refers to legs, loins and shoulders packed in New Zealand and shipped over here. On every piece of meat there is this card, which leaves a space for the retailer to put the weight in pounds and ounces, the price per lb. and the price of the particular piece of meat. To legalise charging for the weight of the package would, I think, be a great mistake.

LORD SALTOUN

Is this not what the Bill is doing? If the net weight of the contents has to be put on the package, then are you selling not the weight of the package, but only the contents?

LORD SHACKLETON

Are we not seeking, in fact, to show the weight of the contents? That is the whole objective of my noble friend, and somehow I think we are at cross-purposes. I do not know whether the noble Lord has understood us on this side, but we have been pressing this point: that a vast quantity of pre-packed meat is sold which is frequently made up in a fairly thin wrapper. But that is not always the case. If you go into a supermarket you will find, say, 100 steaks laid out already pre-packed. By what weight are they to be sold? Are they to be sold by the net weight of the contents? I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord, but this is the anxiety in our minds.

LORD DERWENT

Surely it is clear from the Bill that the net weight is the weight of the contents. If you sell by gross weight, you may do so provided, and only provided, the container is of very small weight. That is how the Bill reads to me, and my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill has said that the "very small weight" is a small piece of greaseproof paper. If it is in excess of the weight laid down in the table further on in the Bill, then it must be sold by the net weight of the contents. That is what the Bill says.

LORD STONHAM

As my noble friend, Lord Faringdon, pointed out, the weight of the container in the first class—there are three schedules of containers, Schedules A, B and C—can be as much as 2½ drams for 2 oz. of ham. There are 16 drams to the oz.; therefore it would not be 8 per cent., as the noble Lord said, but 12½ per cent. of the total weight. I do not think there is any misunderstanding between the noble Earl and myself, but I want to get the matter absolutely right. He must know that the purpose of this Amendment is not only to ensure net weights, but to do away altogether subsequently with the container allowances in the Schedule. Our submission is that we do not need container allowances at all. All traders (subject to one, which I will not mention now, but it will come up later) can easily sell by net weight without any difficulty at all, and that is what the customer is entitled to. But when a customer buys meat or fish or cheese, he should be buying those commodities and not paper. My noble friend, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, with his great experience, said, "To introduce now something which has never been in the trade before, a wrapper allowance, is bringing to the consumer something which is wholly wrong, completely unjust and unjustifiable"; and, indeed, in what he has said so far, the noble Earl has not even begun to justify it.

LORD DERWENT

Before the noble Lord sits down, will he deal with one further point concerning a genuine bit of greaseproof paper. At the moment, the bit of paper in which, say, slices of ham are put is, as the law stands to-day, illegal, and this is trying to make, in effect, that bit of paper legal. I would rather have the meat clean and make the paper legal; but at the moment the trader, though he uses the paper, is not entitled to do so.

LORD STONHAM

There would be no difficulty about that at all. A piece of greaseproof paper weighs one two-hundredth part of an oz. It is true that the scales cannot weigh that, but he easily gets over that difficulty by having a piece of greaseproof paper in the weight pan to balance it out. There is no difficulty about getting the true weight. This provision is not there for the ordinary, small trader, fast-dying, who weighs his stuff in the scale pan. This provision is for the benefit of the least desirable general store people.

LORD DERWENT

There is no weight pan on a lot of machines.

LORD LATHAM

This matter was carefully considered by the Hodgson Committee, and in paragraphs 250, 251 and 252 the Committee came out strongly against what is now proposed in the Bill. I should like, for your Lordships' edification (if I may use that word), to read one or two passages from the Report. At Paragraph 251 the Committee said: We feel strongly that any violation of the principle of sale by net weight is, in theory at least, thoroughly undesirable … At the end of the same paragraph they said: We cannot countenance the hazarding over so wide a front of the principle of sale by net weight. We therefore recommend an alteration to existing practice. Then, at the end of paragraph 252, it says: Hence we recommend that, in the case of these articles,"—

4.40 p.m.

LORD STONHAM moved to leave out paragraph 4. The noble Lord said: This paragraph requires a butcher to make a written statement of both the weight at the time of purchase and the weight at the time of delivery, assuming, of course, that the meat is not delivered at the time of purchase. I understand that if the customer merely buys it over the counter and takes it away, then there is no need for two weights. I have noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, thinks that there is some doubt about this point, but for the moment I am not discussing that. I am discussing only two kinds of transaction. First, there is that in which the butcher, which include the articles dealt with in the paragraph now under debate— a wrapper allowance should be given only when they are weighed out in the presence of the purchaser as part of a retail transaction or where pre-packed on the retail premises where they are to he sold or offered for sale. In the face of those definitive recommendations and the impressive language used, it is difficult to find justification for what is now proposed in this Bill.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 35.

CONTENTS
Alexander of Hillsborough, V.	Kinnoull, E.	Pakenham, L.
Amulree, L.	Latham, L.	Pethick-Lawrence, L.
Ashbourne, L.	Lawson, L.	Saye and Sele, L.
Attlee, E.	Listowel, E.	Shackleton, L
Burden, L. [Teller.]	Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Shepherd, L.
Chorley, L.	Macpherson of Drumochter, L.	Silkin, L.
Dalton, L.	Merrivale, L.	Somers, L.
Faringdon, L.	Meston, L.	Stonham, L.
Henderson, L.	Morrison of Lambeth, L.	Williams, L.
		Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Cottesloe, L.	MoCorquodale of Newton, L.
Ailwyn, L.	Davidson, V.	Margesson, V.
Armory, V.	Derwent, L.	Newall, L.
Ampthill, L.	Digby, L.	Newton, L. [Teller.]
Arran, E.	Dundee, E.	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Atholl, D.	Ebbisham, L.	St. Oswald, L.
Auckland, L.	Furness, V.	Saltoun, L.
Bathurst, E.	Goschen, V.	Teviot, L.
Bethell, L.	Hatherton, L.	Tweedsmuir, L.
Bossem, L.	Hawke, L.	Waldegrave, E.
Boston, L.	Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Wolverton, L.
Conesford, L.	Long, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

at the buyer's request, removes some material and does not deliver that waste material with the meat when it is eventually delivered. The other kind of transaction is that in which the butcher, even if nothing is removed at the buyer's request, delivers the meat at some time later than the, buyer ordered it. I understand that there are two kinds of transactions when the butcher has to mark on the tickets two weights.

On Second Reading I surmised that that provision had been dreamed up by unmarried civil servants with small knowledge of housekeeping, but I have since learned, on the highest authority, that they are all very much married. While apologising for any pain that I may have caused, I am all the more astonished that this provision has been left in the Bill. I am astonished because, although the requirement was imposed on butchers by Section 5 (2) of the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act as long ago as 1926, no one apparently has inquired why such an absurdity has not brought forth protests from butchers or housewives. In my view, it has not brought forth protests because no one has taken any notice of it for the last 35 years.

I have made considerable inquiries in my own limited field (including many inquiries from noble Lords in this House), and I have yet to find anyone who remembers seeing a bill for boned meat, for example, delivered after purchase, bearing on it two weights. But that has been the requirement since 1926. Nor among my many friends who order their meat and have it delivered the next day or the day after have I found one who has had a bill with two weights on it; although again that has been a requirement since 1934. I have even canvassed this matter among butchers. I have not found one who has been observing this section of the 1926 Act. I found some, in fact, who had not even heard of it, and who thought it highly ridiculous and absurd, anyway. Those of my friends whom I consulted thought it would be a meaningless protection to have, because it could not note the correct original weight—that is, the weight charged for—if it differed from the weight delivered. So it is no protection at all against an alleged fraudulent butcher.

I should be interested to hear from the noble Earl when he comes to reply whether there have been any prosecutions for non-compliance with this order; and if so, how many, and over what period. Unless there have been a number of successful prosecutions, it bear out what I am contending—namely, that this provision in the 1926 Act has been honoured in the breach, and that the public have done what they always do with a regulation which is absurd, unworkable and brings no benefit—they have ignored it. But I do feel that we should take the opportunity to remove this provision from the Bill, otherwise it brings the law into contempt.

Let us consider the likely consequences if it is left in the Bill and, because this is a new Act of Parliament, there is pres- sure to implement the provisions. At present the customer is asking the butcher to do a service for nothing; that is, to remove unwanted or inedible portions of the meat (for which service the butcher makes no charge) and, perhaps, to send the joint home. And, of course, the housewife pays exactly the same price whether she takes the meat or it is delivered. But under these provisions, because he is doing that service, the butcher will have to weigh the meat when Mrs. Jones orders it on the telephone, and then weigh it again when he delivers it the next day. Exactly the same thing occurs if he removes bones and rolls the meat. If he removes something from the meat at the buyer's request, the only way he can avoid the obligation of making two weighings is to put all the unwanted material with the meat and send it along in that way.

It seems to me utterly absurd that, in such circumstances, we should ask the butcher to weigh the same piece of meat on both Friday and Saturday and make two records on the ticket. If he has to do that, he will say to Mrs. Jones: "I am afraid you will have to carry it home, because I have not the time to do all that the Government now require". Then both Mrs. Jones, because she is deprived of a service she now enjoys, and the butcher will, quite rightly, blame the Government. Whichever way we look at this, it will mean either higher costs to the housewife or a reduced service, and all for an entirely illusory and non-existent protection—because the argument that this provision is necessary to prevent fraud really carries no conviction whatever. I hope that the Government will do the sensible thing and accept this Amendment in its entirety, and that in his reply the noble Earl will deal separately with the two requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b), which I mentioned separately. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 61, line 29, leave out paragraph 4.—(Lord Stonham.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

This Amendment would dispense with a requirement for a statement in writing as to the quantity of meat delivered—a provision which, as the noble Lord said, has been in operation since 1926 and has been of some value in giving protection to the public. The noble Lord wanted to distinguish between paragraph (a), which states: the goods are subjected before delivery to any process involving loss of weight and the material removed is not delivered with the goods … and paragraph (b), which deals with the position where delivery of the goods to the buyer is deferred". But, in any case, the requirement of this paragraph could apply only when the requirement in subsection (2) of Clause 24 to furnish a statement in writing as to quantity also applies; that is to say, only when the buyer does not take delivery of the meat at the butcher's shop but arranges for it to be delivered to her house. If that happens, if the meat is subject to any process involving loss of weight after sale but before delivery to the house, the additional information referred to in this paragraph has to be added to the delivery note which is required under Clause 24.

If, let us say, the housewife selects her joint on Friday and asks the butcher to bone it and to deliver it to her on the Saturday, the way would be open to a fraudulent butcher to deliver a smaller boned joint than the one which had been ordered. That is made more difficult by requiring him to state on the delivery ticket the boned weight as well as the original weight, so that the housewife, and, if necessary, the inspector, can readily check whether there has been an excessive discrepancy. This provision has been accepted since 1926 without any complaint at all either from the butchers or from the public, and the Government feel that to delete it now would be a retrograde step from the point of view of consumer protection.

If the inspectors had heard of any widespread disregard of this requirement, I think they would have caused some prosecution to be made. The Board of Trade have no information as to whether or not there have been any prosecutions because they would have been undertaken by the local authorities. If they had found it impracticable to prosecute, they would surely have reported it to the Board, and it seems to me rather a reflection on the 880 local authority inspectors to suggest that this requirement is bringing the law into contempt be- cause it is disregarded. Even if there have not been any prosecutions, the fact that the provision is there is a protection, a deterrent, against short weight being given in these circumstances; and we certainly have not received any complaints, from any source, to the effect that it has been unnecessary or has given unreasonable trouble or inconvenience, either to the purchasers or the butchers.

LORD STONHAM

Before the noble Earl sits down, would he please deal with the requirements in paragraph (b), where nothing is removed; where meat is ordered on a Friday and delivered on a Saturday with nothing removed? It still requires two weights to be shown. Would the noble Earl deal with that point separately? He mentioned only the case where parts are removed at the request of the buyer.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

If the delivery of the goods to the buyer is deferred, then she must be protected. The reason for requiring a double statement of weight is that if delivery were delayed for a day or two there would be equal opportunities for a fraudulent butcher to switch a smaller joint while the meat was in his possession. That is a reason for requiring that, if the delivery is delayed, the weight of the meat must again be stated and confirmed to make sure that it is the same joint, weighing the same amount, as that which was ordered by the purchaser the day before.

LORD STONHAM

This gets ever more fantastic. We are now told that a housewife rings up and orders her joint; the butcher then cuts it up, weighs it and charges for it. Then we have this provision to stop the butcher delivering a different joint next day, because there may be a danger that he will deliver a much smaller joint. I have never heard of such nonsense. I find the noble Earl's reply particularly disappointing, because it does not appear that this matter has been investigated at all. Surely, when an Amendment of this kind is moved, the noble Earl should be ready to say, "There have been so many prosecutions over the last 34 years, and it has been disregarded". It is quite inconceivable that there should be a provision in a Bill which has gone on for 34 years and apparently nobody has heard of a prosecution, when all of us know that this provision is completely disregarded in the butchery trade and no housewife has ever heard of it. I ask the noble Earl not to assume, because he has not heard from the inspectors, that it is impracticable to prosecute—as, indeed, it is obviously completely impracticable to prosecute. No inspector could check a fraudulent butcher by saying, "This joint weights 3 lb. 7 oz., and it should have been 5 lb." The reason why there have been no prosecutions is because this provision has been completely disregarded. It would be extremely foolish to lot it remain in the Bill. I ask the noble Earl to consult the local authorities and, if he agrees with me, perhaps we could bring up this matter again on Report stage.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I would say only two things further in reply. If a law of this kind has been on the Statute Book for 34 years, and if we have received no complaints at all that it is either impracticable or vexatious to anybody, that is no reason for assuming that it is universally disregarded, and in any way ridiculous, as the noble Lord chooses to say it is. I can see no ground for that assumption at all. With regard to its being useless and impracticable, I must say that I do not think it is nearly so impracticable as some of the novel proposals for giving the most meticulous protection to the consumer which the noble Lord is proposing in his Amendments to this Bill. I do not see anything impracticable in having a law of this kind, and I do not see any reason for assuming that the law is useless just because we at the Board of Trade do not happen to have the figures regarding prosecutions which may have taken place under it.

LORD STONHAM

Does not the noble Earl agree that the reason why it is not vexatious is because it has been disregarded? If I am wrong in that, then there must have been prosecutions of which he has not heard, of which I have not heard, and of which nobody has heard. I think it shows that my deductions are correct and that his are not. I am merely asking whether he will look at it again and, if he finds I am right, to take a different view of this on Report. The noble Earl has indicated that he will, and on that understanding I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.58 p.m.

LORD WOLVERTON moved to add to paragraph 4: Provided that the requirements of this paragraph shall not apply when the weight of meat has been made known to the buyer on the premises of the seller and the meat is forthwith delivered to the buyer.

The noble Lord said: I should like to ask the Committee whether I may put forward the case of Amendments Nos. 91 and 100. Although No. 100 is in the next Part of Schedule 5 which deals with fish and poultry, it applies to the same subject. I am quite prepared to argue the case all over again if it is necessary, but I do not want to waste the time of the Committee. May I put forward Amendments 91 and 100 together?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

Yes.

LORD WOLVERTON

The object of this Amendment is to try to make the matter clearer on the point the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has just been developing: that is, where a customer goes to the butcher, has a piece of meat weighed and then asks for it to be boned or rolled. There has been a provision regarding meat in the Act since 1926, but for the first time we are bringing in fish and poultry. The same point applies to fish and poultry, as Lord Stonham argued very strongly. It is a service for which the poulterer or fishmonger charges the customer nothing, where a customer wishes the sole filleted or the chicken drawn and dressed—I believe those are the correct words—just as in the case of a butcher whose customer wants the meat boned and rolled. Where delivery is deferred and the goods are sent to the customer the gross and net weights should be given but not where it is done in front of the customer. The wording is not quite clear, because it says "before delivery". Does this mean "before delivery by van" or does it mean delivery to the person after the boning and rolling, the filleting or the plucking and dressing has been done.

In the Hodgson Committee Report, paragraph 309 says: There is a further requirement under Section 5 of the 1926 Act which we believe adds considerably to the protection of the consumer. It is prescribed that a legible statement of net weight must accompany deliveries of butchers meat except where it is weighed out in the purchaser's presence and given to him immediately … I want to make quite clear in this Schedule that there is nothing wrong in giving a gross weight to the customer if he chooses his sole or chicken or bit of meat and then in his presence this operation is done. We do not consider it necessary to have another weighing again, for the net weight, if the customer is satisfied. If he wants the bone of the meat or the fish, he would ask for it. I hope I have made, it clear. We want to know whether the Government would look at this subparagraph (a) of paragraph 4 again. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 61, line 34, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Wolverton.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I think I can show my noble friend that in the circumstances postulated by his two Amendments, one here and another later on, the provisions of the sub-paragraph could riot apply. The paragraph states that the delivery note which is required under Clause 24 to accompany deliveries of meat shall contain certain additional details if the meat is subject before delivery to any process involving loss of weight or if its delivery to the buyer is deferred. But if my noble friend would look at page 23, line 13—Clause 24. subsection (2)—he will see that it is provided there that a delivery note is required only if the buyer does not take delivery of the goods at the premises of the Seller immediately after their quantity has been made known to the buyer. If he does take delivery, no note is required under Clause 24, and therefore paragraph 4 of Part I of this Schedule does not apply.

LORD WOLVERTON

What does it mean by "before delivery"? That is what I do not understand.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

That is if delivery is not taken forthwith.

LORD WOLVERTON

If it is not taken forthwith. Then it is deferred.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

Yes; but in my noble friend's Amendment it is postulated that the commodities are forthwith delivered to the buyer. Then the requirement does not apply.

LORD WOLVERTON

No doubt it is trying to carry out the intention of the Hodgson Committee, where it says "in the purchaser's presence."

LORD HAWKE

There seems to be on the face of it some conflict between this Part of the Schedule and the clause to which my noble friend referred. Under paragraph 4 (a), presumably the delivery is by transport rather than delivery over the counter.

LORD WOLVERTON

Perhaps the noble Earl could look at it again between now and the Report stage to see whether those words are clear. I am advised that local authorities have spent a lot of time on it and they are not happy about it.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I will certainly look into it again. The intention of Clause 24 (2) is that this additional note must be sent only if delivery is not taken immediately.

LORD WOLVERTON

On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.8 p.m.

LORD HAWKE moved, in paragraph 5 of Part I to leave out "less than sixpence" and insert "sixpence or less." The noble Lord said: When I was reading through this Bill in search of what one might call obvious possible anomalies this was one I came upon: that goods sold at less than sixpence can be sold without weighing. I could not quite understand what the Government had in mind in making that limit less than sixpence, because sixpence is such a very useful limit for small meat and poultry purchases. The Bill as it stands would knock out a very common transaction in lights. The little boy or little girl is frequently sent to the butchers to buy "Sixpennyworth of lights, please". As the Bill stands they will have to buy 5½d. worth of lights or, alternatively, the butcher will have to weigh the lights, and one of them went into some very technical and rather disgusting details to me as to exactly what that entailed. It would certainly make difficulties in regard to the slicing up and apportioning of such lights. As there is practically nothing other than this sort of cats' meat and dogs' meat which is likely to be sold at sixpence or less, I suggest it would be wise to have a sixpenny limit here to make a convenient form of transaction. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 61, line 45, leave out ("less than sixpence") and insert ("sixpence or less").(Lord Hawke..)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I agree that my noble friend's Amendment here is an improvement on what is in the Bill and I am delighted to accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Fifth Schedule (continued):

PART II

Fish, poultry and sausages

1. This Part of this Schedule applies to food of any of the following descriptions, that is to say—

1. (a) fish or poultry of any description, whether fresh, chilled, frozen, salted, cooked or processed;
2. (b) sausages;
3. (c) any article which, though it also contans other food, consists substantially of fish or poultry, being an article other than fish paste or poultry paste;

and any reference in this Schedule to poultry includes a reference to any part of any poultry.

2.—(1) Subject to paragraph 5 of this Part of this Schedule, this paragraph shall apply to any goods to which this Part of this Schedule applies which are not pre-packed in a container marked with an indication of quantity by net weight.

(2) When sold by wholesale, such goods other than fish shall be sold only—

1. (a) by net weight; or
2. (b) if sold in a container which does not exceed the appropriate permitted weight specified in Table B of Part XIII of this Schedule, either by net weight or by gross weight.

(3) When sold by retail, the quantity of the goods sold, being—

1. (a) quantity by net weight; or
2. (b) if the goods are sold in such a container as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of the last foregoing sub-paragraph, quantity either by net weight or by gross weight,

shall be made known to the buyer at or before delivery of the goods to him.

3. Subject to paragraph 5 of this Part of this Schedule, goods to which this Part of this Schedule applies shall be pre-packed in a container which exceeds the appropriate permitted weight aforesaid only if the container is marked with an indication of quantity by net weight.

4. Where any fish or poultry is sold by retail and, at the request of the buyer—

1. (a) the goods sold are subjected before delivery to any process involving loss of weight and the material removed is not delivered with those goods; or
2. (b) delivery of those goods to the buyer is deferred,

then, in relation to those goods, the reference in subsection (2) of section twenty-four of this Act to a statement in writing of the quantity of the goods shall be construed as a reference to a statement in writing of both the weight on which the purchase price is based and the net weight of the goods as sent out for delivery.

5.—(1) The following shall be exempted from all the requirements of this Part of this Schedule, that is to say—

1. (a) whole birds which—
1. (i) being bled and plucked but un-eviscerated, weigh less than two and a quarter pounds; or
2. (ii) being eviscerated and ready for cooking, but including any giblets sold therewith, weigh less than one and a half pounds;
2. (b) any other goods in a quantity of less than one ounce.

(2) The following shall be exempted from the requirements of paragraph 2 of this Part of this Schedule, that is to say—

1. (a) cooked poultry;
2. (b) shellfish in shell, whitebait, jellied fish, pickled fish and fried fish:

LORD SILKIN had given notice of his intention in paragraph 1 (c) to leave out "substantially" and insert "at least fifty per cent. by weight". The noble Lord said: This Amendment is on the same principle as Amendment No. 86 which I moved. I assume that the noble Earl will be prepared to look at this one in the same way as No. 86. In those circumstances, I do not move the Amendment.

5.10 p.m.

LORD STONHAM moved, in paragraph 2 (1), to leave out all words after applies and insert "including pre-packed goods". The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 94 standing in the names of my noble friends and myself. This is precisely the same argument as the one we had on meat. It seeks to dispense with wrapper allowances and to have sales by net weight, whether the goods are pre-packed or not. There are Amendments a little lower on the Marshalled List which are connected with this matter. Naturally, I do not wish to repeat the arguments I have already made. I would ask the noble Earl whether he can tell us the reason why the arrangements in the Schedules in respect to meat are different from those for fish. For example, this Amendment, if it is accepted, would make sale by net weight obligatory for poultry and fish. The Bill does that for meat—you ask for sales of meat by net weight. But with regard to poultry and fish you ask merely for sales, or that the weight should be made known to the buyer, at or about the delivery of the goods to him.

It seems to me, unless the noble Earl can say otherwise, that the reason for this is to avoid the principle inherent in a sale by weight, and therefore avoid the necessity for fixing the price of the goods according to their weight—that is, on the basis of price per lb. or other units. Therefore, particularly in regard to poultry, we see a danger of the victimisation of the consumer. For example, a grocer may display portions of pre-packed chicken all arbitrarily priced at 2s. 6d. or 5s. a portion, and there would be no real safeguard at all with regard to weight in respect of those things. I should be glad if the noble Earl can say, while forgiving me for not repeating again all the arguments—we are strongly in favour of abolishing this wrapper allowance, as we made clear just now—why the Government have seen fit to deal differently in this matter as between meat and poultry. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 62, line 15, leave out from ("applies") to end of line 16 and insert ("including pre-packed goods").—(Lord Stonham..)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I would certainly agree with the noble Lord in not wishing to repeat unnecessarily the arguments that we have had before. I think there are three or four different points which arise out of this Amendment. There is the point about wrappers, which I gather the noble Lord does not wish to argue again; then, with regard to pre-packing, I am not sure whether he wanted me to say anything or not, or whether he wished me to confine myself only to the particular point of fish and poultry—as to why it was treated differently from meat.

LORD STONHAM

That is so, because the other is exactly the same.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

Very well. Then I will leave out what I might have said about the pre-packing point. I think there may be a few considerations to be raised here, but if the noble Lord does not wish to go any further—

LORD STONHAM

I did not mean to be discourteous. If the noble Earl has some information which would add to our knowledge on the subject, we could study it later, and we may as well have it now.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I was not thinking of information; I was thinking of the exact way in which the Amendment would apply to pre-packing. Perhaps I should say that, because of the difficulties of evaporation loss in sausages, and certain other factors relating to the sales of poultry and fish, we have not imposed a marking requirement for the goods covered by Part II of this Schedule. Provided that they are pre-packed in a container, and that the weight does not exceed the limits prescribed in Table B of Part XIII, the only requirement is that the net or gross weight of the goods shall be made known to the retail buyer. So the packers cannot claim that an unreasonable marking requirement has been imposed upon them. In concentrating upon the weight which a consumer will actually be getting, the Bill is, we feel, giving him a more effective protection than would be the case with a marking of the weight at some previous and indeterminate point of time. I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes to discuss his next Amendment now—that in connection with fish?

LORD STONHAM

I prefer to move that separately.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

In that case think perhaps I had better wait until the noble Lord moves it before I tell him what we feel about the effect of this part of the Bill on the retail sales of fish, poultry and sausages by net weight only.

LORD STONHAM

Has the noble Earl had regard to the fact that many retail manufacturers now sell sausages by net weight? Wall's sell almost all their sausages by net weight and there is no difficulty about the container allowance there. Sainsbury's sell almost all of their goods in that way. They are in containers, but they do not require any container allowance because they sell by net weight. Indeed, you see the weight marked on, and the price per lb., or the total price from which you can judge the price per lb. I know that prices are no part of this Bill; that it is a Weights and Measures Bill. But it is difficult for me to understand, listening to the noble Earl's explanation, why in this regard poultry land fish should be dealt with quite differently from meat. There seems to be no need whatsoever—the noble Earl has not made the need clear at all—as to why there must be a container or wrapper allowance for fish. The reply with regard to fish, purely on the net weight point, seems just as unsatisfactory and incomplete as it was with meat.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

But the position is the same with regard to the container or net weight wrapper for fish. The Bill limits the weight of the wrapper pretty severely. At weights up to and including 1 lb. the wrapper must not exceed 4½ drams—that is to say, at the 1 lb. mark a little more than 1 per cent. of the total weight. At the ½lb. weight this figure rises to 3.4 per cent. of the total weight. Admittedly, the public will appear to be getting underweight to that extent, but we feel that the small amount of underweight involved is not a bad price to pay for the advantages of hygiene. For instance, loose fish can be handled and weighed in the shop in a protective wrapper. Nor is it a bad price to pay for the advantages of the speedy sale of fish prepacked in light-weight cellophane wrappers, which can be weighed gross on a self-indicating weighing machine in the presence of the purchaser, without the shop assistant having to do a complicated mental sum to subtract the likely weight of the container from the gross weight and then call out the answer to the shopper.

One of the main purposes of this Bill is to provide the public with a system of protection which is adapted to the circumstances of the individual trade and so to run less risk of giving a superficial form of protection which will, in fact, either put up the costs against the shopper or compel her to wait longer in the queue. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, in the discussion on the last Amendment, referred to the Hodgson Committee. I feel that perhaps one penalty which the Government are paying for having waited nine years before bringing in this Bill is that circumstances in the retail trade have changed and progressed a great deal in the last nine years. There have been such advances in the techniques of wrapping things and in new kinds of wrappers and containers, saving so much time in shopping, that the circumstances are not now quite the same as they were nine years ago. The only difference on which the noble Lord wanted information was that between Table A and Table B in Part XIII of the Schedule—why the wrapper in the case of meat had to be under Table A while for fish, and so on, it was under Table B.

LORD SHEPHERD

The whole weakness of the Government's case is now coming to light. They now say that in the interests of hygiene the customer should take short-weight and pay for it. Hygiene is not merely the cleanliness of the scales on which the article is put; it goes throughout the whole shop. The service and the cleanliness is maintained by the management who have their resources from the legitimate profit made on the article. But for the noble Earl to come here and say that we must make it possible for the customer legally to be given short-weight so that the saving on the weight of the article shall pay for the hygiene is, to my mind, quite amoral. It certainly goes against what I believed and understood were the principles of this Bill: that where the customer is paying by weight she should receive full value by weight. The more we listen to the noble Earl defending the principle that he raises behind this Bill—but which we on this side completely reject—the weaker, I am afraid, his case becomes.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

The noble Lord will be aware that the commodities in question have to be sold by net weight unless the container comes within the limits prescribed in Part XIII of this Schedule; that is to say, within pretty small limits. Even for Table B, the limits are fairly small. We feel that these are justified by the very greatly increased convenience, as well as hygiene which, under modern shopping methods the customer will derive.

LORD SHEPHERD

It is not only going to be small items and percentages. To-day in the multiple stores one finds very small amounts of bacon cut very thin being sold in a paper-wrapper and, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Faringdon, in the ease of meat two drams may represent quite a considerable percentage of the meat being bought. But we are going one stage further on fish and are to give an increased wrapper allowance. In other words, with fish the customer is to get less for his money than he does with meat and the noble Earl must know that to-day fish is as expensive as meat, if not more expensive. So far as we are concerned, it is largely a question of principle here; that the customer should get the net weight of the article for which he or she is paying.

LORD STONHAM

The great diference between the noble Earl and myself in this matter is that the Government want to sell by gross weight—and that is what, in effect, will happen if the containers are within the permitted rated weights. We want selling to be by net weight, even though the goods are in a container, because we are perfectly well aware that all producers and packers can easily put the net weight in the packet. I hope that the noble Earl will not continually think, as I am sure he does quite honestly, that these permitted weights are virtually negligible. Let us take fish: the permitted weight for a container for a quantity not exceeding 1 lb. is 4½ drams, which is more than ¼ oz. Plenty of people buy ¼ lb. of prawns, which are quite expensive; or it may be ¼ lb. of smoke salmon, which would cost 6s. At that price, ¼ oz. therefore would cost 4½d.—which the customer will have to pay., not for smoked salmon but for a little bit of paper.

As my noble friend Lord Macpherson of Drumochter has said, as soon as the shopkeeper (and perhaps not so much the shopkeeper as the packer) finds out that his piece of paper or container may weigh as much as ¼ oz. 4½ drams—he will see that it does weigh that amount; and the customer will be paying not for smoked salmon but for paper. That is the point I want to make to the noble Earl. Surely he will agree that it is better for the customer to buy a particular quantity of fish or meat, and to get that quantity without an added quantity of paper or cardboard treated as if it were fish or meat. We reassert that these container allowances are quite unnecessary and unjustifiable, and we want the Government to start thinking the other way, from net weight. Then it will be found that container allowances are unnecessary.

My last point: I would ask the noble Earl to look at Parts I and II and compare the provisions with regard to weighing meat and for poultry. He will see they are quite different. One is a net weight requirement, the other requirement is that goods shall be weighed in the buyer's presence. If they are weighed in the buyer's presence they will be weighed in the container, and the container will be included and paid for. It is to that that we object.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

5.28 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON moved, in paragraph 2 (2), to leave out "other than fish". The noble Lord said: Paragraph 2 (2) is concerned with sales by wholesale. Under this Part of the Schedule such sales shall be by net weight when sold in a container according to the description given in it; but it excludes specifically fish (unlike poultry and sausages) from the requirements of subparagraph (2) of paragraph 2. I shall be interested to know why the Government have gone contrary to the Hodgson Report in this matter. I do not think that the argument used by the noble Earl with regard to the advance in pre-packing methods in the retail trade applies in regard to this particular requirement, which relates only to wholesale. The evidence given before the Hodgson Committee, as mentioned in paragraph 312 of the Report, showed that the fishmongers had asked for some assurance that wholesalers should be under an obligation to dispatch to retailers correct net weight, although it was realised that there are losses in transit through evaporation. The paragraph also says: The inland and port wholesalers association have said that they would not oppose the principle of requiring their members to conduct all transactions in terms of net weight and of making it an offence for the packer at any stage of distribution to pack short weight. In a later section (paragraph 316) the Hodgson Committee recommended that all sales of fresh fish, with the exception of the first sale on landing, of herrings sold by the cran and of shell fish, should be by net weight only; and these exceptions, of course, could be taken care of in a later paragraph of the Schedule. That could come by an Amendment to paragraph 5 which, so far as I can understand, naturally does not cover this, because in regard to wholesale, fish is wholly excluded. The strength of feeling that existed when the evidence was given to the Hodgson Committee still applies. It is not only the fishmongers but various other interested parties, like fish friers, who are concerned. The matter is perhaps of more importance because there has been a tendency to get away from the standard practice of selling fish by the stone in wholesale transactions, and some blocks of frozen fish these days are sold by 5 lb. weight and some by 1½ stones. I should be interested to know what the Government have to say on this matter. One appreciates the difficulties, but it seems to me not beyond the bounds of the capacity of the Parliamentary draftsmen to meet the general principle while providing exceptions as may be necessary. I would make clear at this stage that I am not raising any objection to the wrappers.

Amendment moved—

Page 62, line 17, leave out ("other than fish").—(Lord Shackleton..)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

The noble Lord has correctly stated the recommendations of the Hodgson Committee about this and also the exceptions which the Hodgson Committee acknowledge have to be made. They instanced the traditional practice of selling herrings by the cran, which is a container of prescribed dimensions, and also the practice of conducting first sales on landing of other fresh fish in terms of a full container of standard size known as a kit. The weight of these goods is not ascertained owing to the need for speedy handling and because, as the fish at this stage is roughly packed with ice, accurate weighing would be impracticable in any case: that is to say, the ground for these exceptions is that it is the custom to sell by capacity and not by weight.

Discussions with the fish trade have revealed that there are a good many further categories of sales, in addition to those mentioned by the Hodgson Committee, which could not reasonably be required to be made strictly by weight. For example, the first buyers upon landing at the ports often sell some of their purchase of goods in the same condition in which they bought them to smaller wholesalers, again without having time or the facilities to verify their weight precisely. The first sales on landing are not in all cases conducted at the quayside, but sometimes, as in inland markets, where conditions are quite different. It would be a source of confusion to the traders and to the enforcing authorities if certain wholesale transactions at the quayside were required to be by weight while others were exempted, for good reasons, and if certain wholesale transactions at the inland markets were covered while others had to be exempted because of the difficulty of distinguishing between them and comparable transactions at the ports. Therefore, the Government have come to the conclusion that it is best not to attempt to cover wholesale sales of fish. But if they are sold by weight, which of course they may be, then they are subject to the general short-weight provisions in Clause 25 of this Bill, which protects the wholesaler and retailer whenever their suppliers in fact purport to sell them a specific weight of fish.

LORD SHACKLETON

I thank the noble Earl. I should like to think about his answer. I am a little surprised that the Hodgson Committee were not aware of these other exceptions. But this is not the occasion on which to debate the Hodgson Committee Report; it is the occasion on which to debate the Government's proposals. I think the strength of feeling is such that we ought to consider even now whether some Amendment—possibly not exactly the one I have moved; perhaps the one I have moved accompanied by the exceptions—might come in a later paragraph and whether we should not deal with it on Report stage. However, unless any other noble Lords wish to speak, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.35 p.m.

LORD STONHAM moved in paragraph 2 leave out from "weight" in subparagraph (2) (a) to the end of the subparagraph, and insert: and goods which are prepacked shall be sold by net weight at the time of packing".

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment 94B in the name of my noble friend and myself. I would point out that originally there were two Amendments on the Paper and they have been joined together. I hope that, as they have been joined together, the noble Earl will not tear them asunder but will follow the excellent example that was given in accepting the Amendment moved by his noble friend Lord Hawke. There are some extraordinary contradictions and anomalies to be seen as one goes through this Fifth Schedule. One wonders why it is that goods from different industries, including foodstuffs, which apparently ought to be dealt with in the same way, are nevertheless treated differently. For example, on this question of the wholesale selling of fish, it is quite impossible for the retailer to get net weight. If the fish is deficient when the trunks of fish arrive at his establishment he cannot do anything about it: there is no kind of redress at all. But here the Bill exempts the wholesaler from any requirement of giving net weight. I really do not understand the reason for it. It is another example, of course, of the different way the Government have looked at the Bill in regard to different commodities.

If a farmer sells a sack of potatoes, the buyer can require him to weigh them in the sack and then to weigh the sack and deduce the net weight from that; or he can compel the farmer to turn them out of the sack and weigh the potatoes and he gets net weight in that way. But not so the retail fishmonger: he has no rights at all. He may be "carved up" from the very beginning. It is all covered by the fact of seepage: the ice melts and water runs away. But the retailer has paid in the market for fish—fish he does not get. Consequently, it is all put on the price the housewife pays because the retailer allows for this. That is the kind of thing that happens when the Government yield to pressure in particular lobbies on behalf of par- ticular industries, and we get these complete contradictions and differences of treatment between one industry and another. That is why we are moving these Amendments, to make the Bill read: When sold by retail, such goods shall be sold only by net weight and goods which are pre-packed shall be sold by net weight at the time of packing.

What we had in mind was that fish would be pre-packed when it was in a trunk, when it was in a wooden case. Or does the noble Earl not accept that? Surely, in a wholesale sale from wholesaler to retailer, if fish is in the trunk, then it is pre-packed. Our argument is that the retailer should be given net weight at the time of packing. He can allow, of course, for seepage in ascertaining the actual cost of the fish and will then be protected from pilferage. That is the principle we have been trying to get all through this Bill: that, whether you buy at the retail stage or whether at the wholesale stage, you get what you pay for, and that you do not get cardboard, wood or paper when you are paying for fish, meat, cheese or anything else.

The arguments now being put forward may seem to your Lordships to have a touch of sameness, but the fault is not ours, because we are consistently arguing the same point: that there should not be container allowances; that people are entitled to net weight; and that there is no difficulty at all about giving the net weight of any of the commodities that we have dealt with, providing, with these pre-packed goods, where there is a great deal of evaporation and seepage, net weight means net weight at the time of packing. You can then dispense with all your container allowances and avoid all the trouble which will be caused by this edifice which the Government have painstakingly built up in order to satisfy pressure from certain traders in particular industries who are enjoying, at the expense of the consumers, an unfairly privileged position—and the wholesale fish trade is a particular case in point. We are asking the Government to accept this Amendment so that that privileged position can be removed, and so that, along with other traders, they will be required to sell by net weight. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 62, line 19, leave out from ("weight") to end of line 22 and insert ("and goods which are prepacked shall be sold by net weight at the time of packing").—(Lord Stonham..)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I will most certainly not split up the noble Lord's Amendments in any way in which he does not want them to be split up, although it had occurred to me that this might have been discussed together with Amendment No. 90; but this Amendment particularly concerns the noble Lord's desire that pre-packed goods should be sold by the weight at the time of packing. That the Government could not accept. I know we are faced all the way through this Bill with the difficulty of reconciling effective protection of the consumer with being fair to the trader and not imposing upon him too onerous burdens which he cannot reasonably be expected to carry—and, incidentally, which may, of course, involve various inconveniences to the purchaser himself. But, while we recognise that packers of commodities which are liable to significant loss of weight by evaporation during their distribution would prefer this form of marking to the form of marking proposed in the Bill, we cannot agree to it in principle. It would be a curious form of protection which left the consumer, not the packer, who is an expert in his trade, to guess the extent to which there was likely to be a loss of weight during distribution; and it would be a form of protection for the public which would pose a very difficult problem to the inspectors who had to enforce it in respect of produce packed in Great Britain. It could not be enforced at all in respect of any imported produce which had been pre-packed and marked overseas.

The noble Lord has spoken about putting people in a privileged position, and it seems to me that his Amendment would have the effect of favouring the packer while raising every possible difficulty for the retailer who sells the same goods loose. The packer would be allowed to state the weight of the goods when packed, although the goods, according to his own account, may weigh considerably less by the time they reach the consumer. On the other hand, a retailer selling the same goods loose would not be able either to put a piece of greaseproof paper on his scales when weighing the goods out or Ito price goods at so much each. It may be that pre-packing is a useful and hygienic method of sale, but I do not think we could accept that kind of discrimination. I must again repeat, as I think I said to your Lordships on Second Reading, that we have carefully considered all other possible methods of protecting the packer and the consumer, and we have come to the conclusion that the only effective kind of protection for the consumer is that he should be informed of the weight of the goods at the time at which they are sold to him, and not at the time when they are pre-packed. I think it would be quite an impossible thing to enforce.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD STONHAM

I will merely move this Amendment formally, as I have recited all the arguments and I have no wish to repeat them.

Amendment moved—

Page 62, line 23, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—

("(3) When sold by retail, such goods shall be sold only by net weight and the weight shall be made known to the buyer at or before the delivery of the goods to him.").—(Lord Stonham..)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

Does the noble Lord wish me to reply to his formal move?

LORD STONHAM

If the noble Earl has something different to say.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I shall be delighted to reply if he wants any further explanation, but I thought the noble Lord said—

LORD STONHAM

No, thank you.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

5.47 p.m.

LORD STONHAM moved to leave out paragraph 4. The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 99. We had a discussion on the deletion of paragraph 4 in Part I of the Fifth Schedule, but the position here is not precisely the same, for one important reason: that this has not previously been the law. When, previously, a customer has said to a fishmonger on the telephone "Mr. Jones, will you please fillet my soles?", the law has not required the fishmonger then to say. "Yes, madam, I will do that for nothing, as usual, but, in order to satisfy the law, I must first weigh the soles with the bones in them and then weigh the soles with the bones out of them and record both weights on a ticket, for if I don't do that I shall be liable on a first offence to a fine of up to £100, and on a second offence to a fine of £100 or three months or both." I say that that previously has not been the law, but it will be the law—and I mean this quite seriously—if we do not delete this paragraph 4.

There is one safeguard for the fishmonger, and that is if, when he delivers the fish, he wraps up with the fish the bones which he has removed. Then he does not have to make out the weight twice, but only one weight. Really, I challenge the noble Earl to say whether I am in any way misstating the case. That is precisely the case. In fact, it is even worse than that. If a housewife rings up her fishmonger and says, "Mr. Jones, will you please deliver me two very nice soles to-morrow? I do not need them filleted", he, of course, will say, "Yes madam"; but if this Amendment is not accepted he will have to say to her, "But if I deliver them whole. I shall have solemnly to weigh them now". He may even take a liking to them when he is weighing them, and he may christen one "Dundee" and the other "St. Oswald" (I do not know) just to identify them; and then he puts those particular soles away again. The next day, before the errand boy delivers them, he has to take them out and weigh them again, and he has to enter both weights on a ticket, having done nothing to them—nothing at all. If he does not do that, again he is subject to the fines I mentioned. And all that so as to prevent the charge of fraud—in other words, to prevent the possibility that on Saturday Mrs. Jones should not get "Dundee" and "St. Oswald" but should get two other fish.

LORD HAWKE

We are ignorant in these matters, never having kept a fishmonger's shop, but is it the normal transaction for somebody to buy "Dundee" or "St. Oswald" and ask for them to be delivered next day? I should have thought that could very well wait till the next morning's delivery.

LORD STONHAM

I do not know whether the noble Lord has read the paragraph, but I will read it to him. Where any fish or poultry is sold by retail and, at the request of the buyer—

1. (a) the goods sold are subjected before delivery to any, process involving loss of weight and the material removed is not delivered with those goods; or
2. (b) delivery of those goods to the buyer is deferred"—

that is, without doing anything to them, exactly as I have described it— then, in relation to those goods … a statement in writing of the quantity of the goods shah be construed as a reference to a statement in writing of both the weight on which the purchase price is based and the net weight of the goods as sent out for delivery". Therefore, if, when delivery is deferred, the statement has to be one of the weight on which the purchase price is based, obviously the shopkeeper must weigh the goods when the sale is made. That is the weight on which the purchase price is based. He must equally obviously weigh them again, in order to comply with the law, as it will then be, when he delivers them. I say that this is abject and complete nonsense. I had to agree, when we had the same provision over meat, that it was the law; I said that for 34 years the law had been disregarded and therefore there had been no complaints of vexation. But the noble Earl cannot now argue that it is the law in the case of fish. He can only say, "We are bringing this in just to tidy it up, and make meat and fish the same, in a tidy, bureaucratic way". I think this really would be nonsense, if such a thing were done.

And it is the same with poultry. At this time of the year many families order their turkey or goose a week or so in advance. It is theirs. It may still be hanging up in the butcher's or the poulterer's shopwindow, and may even have their name on it, and the children may come in and inspect it. Then it is delivered to their home a week later and it has to be weighed again, although originally it was weighed and perhaps paid for. What useful purpose can it serve to have this provision? It has happened to all of us that when we have seen the turkey coming home we thought possibly it did not look the same; but none of us would look the same with our heads off, having been drawn and eviscerated. It is enough to make anyone turn pale! But we are solemnly assured that it is necessary to have these two weights because the customer, if he had those two weights, would be able to go back to the poulterer or the fishmonger and say, "That is not St. Oswald'", and therefore it would prevent fraud.

I cannot see what useful purpose is served by this provision, and I believe it would hold us up as a laughing stock and would not be observed in any case. It is our purpose to afford buyers all necessary and reasonable protection under this Bill, not to create unnecessary work which does nobody any good. I trust the Government will agree that this provision in relation to fish and poultry should not have been put into the Bill, and that they will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 62, line 35, leave out paragraph 4.—(Lord Stonham..)

5.55 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I do not think the noble Lord quite has the point about this. The object of our proposals in the Bill is to protect the housewife against ordering "Dundee" and being supplied next day by a fraudulent fishmonger with "St. Oswald" instead—that is to say, if the fish is sold by weight; if it were sold by quality, I should not like to say. The case on this point is precisely the same as on Amendment No. 90. The only difference which the noble Lord has pointed out is that, in regard to meat, it has been the law for 34 years, and we are now giving the same protection with regard to fish. As to telephone orders, all that the fishmonger would have to do is to weigh the fish at the time of ordering, if he and the buyer agreed a purchase price over the telephone; and if the buyer was content to leave the price to be determined until after delivery, then there need only be a statement in writing as to the weight of the goods delivered. I really do not think that the procedure is quite so ridiculous as the noble Lord represents it to be.

LORD HAWKE

I am not sure from the noble Earl's explanation what the exact procedure would be in the case of the common form of transaction—not the deferred transaction which, I submit, is a very uncommon one—where the housewife rings up a fishmonger and says, "I want some filleted whiting weighing about 3 lb. after it is filleted". The fishmonger has some whiting on the slab at 1s. 10d. a lb., or whatever it is, and proceeds to take off sufficient whiting to make approximately 3 lb. filleted. He weighs the whiting before filleting and charges her account (she must be an account customer to have rung up), and then fillets the fish and finally weighs it. I am not sure at the moment whether he weighs the fish or does not weigh the fish; but under the Bill presumably he will have to weigh and give a ticket stating both the gross weight, which is the one the housewife will be charged on, and the other one for her information, and, by consulting some theological authorities and a book of logarithms, she may be able to discover whether she has correct weight or not. Is that a true statement of what is going to occur? Because if it is, it seems rather unnecessary. A deferred transaction is one which I do not believe really exists. I do not believe that any self-respecting fishmonger would admit to keeping fish from one day to the next, in response to an order. I have not the least doubt that they do, bat I am sure they would not admit it.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

The case quoted by Lord Stonham was not fish but a turkey which might perhaps be kept for a day or two after being ordered. With regard to the point of my noble friend, Lord Hawke, of course, if the housewife particularly wanted to go through all this theological process, I daresay she could ask for it; but the normal thing would be that the sale would be of filleted whiting and only one weight need be stated—that is, the weight of the filleted whiting which was actually ordered.

LORD DERWENT

I still do not understand, I am afraid. Take a fowl which is sold at so much a lb. with its head on. A price per lb. is charged for the fowl with its head on. If it does not have its head on, it is a different price per lb. This bird is then prepared and the head taken off, and, the bird having been nicely trussed, it is sent round and delivered. Surely, according to this clause, that means it must be weighed with the head on and it must be weighed prepared for the table; or the alternative is to take all the guts out and pack them up in another parcel and send them off. The same thing applies with fish. If you do not clean the fish you are all right, but if you do you have either to send the "innards" in a separate parcel or the fish is priced at so much a lb. with its insides in. Very often it depends on the type of fish. What is to be done when it is cleaned?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

If it was bought with the head on and then instructions were given to cut off the head and deliver it, there would be two weights; but if it was ordered with its head cut off or in any other form which the noble Lord wanted, then there would he only one weight.

LORD STONHAM

I think that the problem of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, is not that he does not understand this paragraph, but that he understands it far too clearly. I would ask the noble Earl whether he would allow me to recite one or two examples and then say if I am wrong. In the case of a fowl, if a housewife orders it for delivery later, the poulterer must weigh it before it is drawn, record that weight and charge accordingly. Then he must weigh it after it is eviscerated and record that weight on the ticket, unless he wraps up all the entrails and head in a piece of paper and puts them with the fowl when it is delivered. Then he does not have to record a separate weight. This point is completely undisputable. It is no use the noble Earl pushing this aside. It is exactly the same with fish. The fishmonger has either to wrap up the bones and gut and deliver it like that or make up two tickets. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, raised another case and said that a deferred order must be rare. Among housewives who have a credit account with fishmongers, a deferred order is the usual thing.

LORD HAWKE

What I thought was rare was for a housewive to order fish one day and that the same fish would be delivered next day.

LORD STONHAM

That may be so, but the usual form is for the lady of the house, after she and the cook have had a morning post-breakfast conference, to go to the fishmonger and order fish for that day. It is ordered in the morning and delivered in the afternoon. That is a deferred delivery.

Under the clause as it stands, the cook may ask how much soles are to-clay and is told that they are so much a pound. The fishmonger then takes a number of soles and weighs them, bones them, not charging for that work, and either delivers the bones with the fish or makes up another ticket for the net weight. This is beyond denial. It is precisely what the paragraph says and it is no use the noble Earl saying otherwise. I hope I am an ordinary individual and I do not like to laugh at things civil servants do. It is not at the civil servants that people will laugh at here. Housewives and fishmongers and Members of another place will laugh at us, if we let this utterly stupid provision go and do not eliminate it from the Bill.

LORD BOOTHBY

What happens to the guts? Nobody wants fish gut, though they want fish roe.

LORD STONHAM

This can be clone only at the request of the buyer. If the buyer asks a fishmonger to remove the bone and gut, he will do so. Normally, he does not make a charge for that; he does it as part of a service. If he does that and delivery is not made over the counter at the time, he has to do one of two things: either record the first weight of the fish when it was entire and then record the weight of the fish when the bone and gut had been removed and mark both down on the ticket before delivery, or he has to remove the bone and gut, wrap them up with the fish he has filleted and deliver them; then he has only to make out one ticket. What is likely to happen is that the fishmonger will not be bothered to fillet the fish and the housewife will have to fillet her own fish; or, if he is to be put to all this trouble, the fishmonger will sell filleted fish at a greatly enhanced price and the housewife will have to pay more. It is not the law now. I think that this is utterly stupid and I hope that your Lordships will support me in this.

LORD WOLVERTON

I understand the difficulty here. I had a long talk with our chief inspector the other day and he likes the idea in the Bill because it is difficult for inspectors to check on deferred deliveries in vans unless there is a double weight. They find this to be the case especially around the festive season. They like the idea of a double weight being put in with a deferred delivery for their job of checking.

LORD HAWKE

I wonder whether inspectors are going to be much "forrarder" when they have the two weights. When dealing with meat, cattle are fattened to a certain size and an expert can tell within a small margin what the killing-out weight is. But when we come to deal with fish, I doubt whether anybody can tell us, because the weight of edible fish on a carcase must vary considerably according to the size of the carcase. And the same thing applies to poultry. Your Lordships know that there is a great difference between buying a large turkey and a small one. However this may appeal to the tidy-mindedness of inspectors from the arithmetical point of view, in the vast majority of cases they will be no better placed with two weights than they are with one.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

6.10 p.m.

LORD WOLVERTON had given notice to move to add to paragraph 4: Provided that the requirements of this paragraph shall not apply when the weight of the fish and poultry has been made known to the buyer on the premises of the seller and the fish and poultry is forthwith delivered to the buyer.

The noble Lord said: I had intended to move this Amendment, but as my noble friend said he would look into this point as well as the other Amendment I moved, I do not propose to do so.

LORD FARINGDON

I think this is the same point that arose on the noble Lord's previous Amendment, and I hope the Government will give it serious consideration, because I think the noble Lord is quite right.

LORD SHEPHERD moved in paragraph 5, to leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert: Any goods in a quantity of less than one ounce shall be exempted from all the requirements of this Part of this Schedule".

The noble Lord said: The Committee will notice that in the Bill as it stands, the Government exclude or exempt from the requirements of the whole of this Schedule birds, either plucked or unplucked, of a weight of 2½ lb. or under.

As I understand it, birds under this weight can include a fair percentage of what are called "broilers", and it includes a considerable number of small birds that are being sold in the supermarkets. I cannot see why the Government should exclude this particular item from the Schedule. The purpose of putting down the Amendment is to obtain the views of the Government on this matter. I would point out that if this Amendment was accepted—and I think it would very much strengthen the whole of the Schedule—it would cover all goods, except those in sub-paragraph (2), that weighed more than 1 oz. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 63, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert the said sub-paragraph.—(Lord Shepherd.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

The exemption of poultry of these small weights is designed solely to relieve what is mainly a trade in special classes of immature birds, like poussin, in which the purchaser is not really concerned with the weight but only with judging by appearance whether the bird will do for one or two portions at a meal, or something of that kind. We do not think there is any need to interfere with this particular kind of trade, which is a special branch of the poultry trade in which the vast majority of purchasers are concerned solely with judging by appearance and not by weight at all. If the noble Lord has any reason to think that there is any large amount of sales of birds within these weights which are in what he called the broiler class, in which weight would be a consideration. I will certainly look into it again. Our only intention here is to exclude such things as poussin.

LORD SHEPHERD

I accept the invitation of the noble Earl and would ask him to look into this again. I understand that, while he is quite correct in saying that most of the birds which would be exempted under this provision would be for the restaurant trade, there is an increasing number of these smaller birds being sold in the supermarkets, and, as that is the case, I think they should be covered by the provisions. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

In Part 1 of the Schedule where a similar requirement is applied to meat and meat products there is a specific exemption for meat pies, and the Government think the same reasons justify exemption for poultry pies. From the point of view of the consumer, to know the weight of the pie is really of little help in judging whether or not he is getting good value for money. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 63, line 8, at end insert— ("(b) poultry pies;")—(The Earl of Dundee.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHACKLETON moved, in paragraph 5 (2) (b), to leave out "whitebait". The noble Lord said: We wish to leave out whitebait from this paragraph of Part II of the Schedule. Whitebait, being fish, is already excluded from the provisions of Part II in regard to wholesale. If we do not amend this particular paragraph, it will mean that whitebait is also excluded from the requirements in regard to retail sale which apply to most other fish. I am advised that whitebait is normally sold by weight, and that it is the most convenient way for people to buy it. For that reason, it seemed desirable to extract whitebait from this sub-paragraph and let the ordinary provisions of the Schedule apply. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 63, line 13, leave out ("whitebait").—(Lord Shackleton.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

It is a relief to me on this Amendment that your Lordships are unlikely to talk about what would happen if the whitebait is eviscerated or filleted. This is another question in which weight and capacity appear to be rivals for our consideration, and the noble Lord said he thought that whitebait were usually sold by weight. We are exempting this whitebait from these requirements at the suggestion of the trade, who have informed us that sales by weight are small and they are often made by the pint. We do not wish to interfere with similar sales of shellfish, which are also exempted from the requirements of this Bill. It is on the representations which have been made to us by the trade. They are frequently sold by the pint and not by weight. If the noble Lord has contrary information, I will gladly weigh the one against the other.

LORD LATHAM

Are they sold more by the pint than by weight?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

The representations we have received are that they are so frequently sold by the pint and not by weight that it would seriously upset the trade if it were to be made a statutory requirement that they should be sold by weight. If your Lordships think the contrary is the fact, I shall gladly look into it again. But that is the information we have.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

We have had so many representations, both from the Consumers' Council and the trade itself, that I would say it is quite marked that we have had no representations made to us about whitebait. I should have thought that either we should leave this matter over for Report and have a further inquiry, or else the Government ought to meet us on it. Certainly a great quantity of the general market in whitebait is sold by weight.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I shall be glad to look into any recommendations which your Lordships may give. We are trying to protect the public as well as we can, but we do not want unnecessarily to interfere with an established trade practice.

LORD SHACKLETON

I certainly think we ought to consider this matter again. We ought to lay down that it is sold by the pint if not by the gill. We will not pursue the matter further now, but I hope the Government will look at it before the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

This subparagraph was drafted so as to exempt sales "made otherwise than from a market, shop or vehicles." But we forgot that the wording as it is now would also exempt sales of fish from stalls. It is not intended to exempt stalls, because it does not impose any hardship to require a weighing machine to be provided at these stalls. All we want to do is to exempt fishwives or people who carry fish in baskets for sale, but who cannot carry a weighing machine, too. I do not think it would be right to exempt stalls. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 63, line 17, after ("shop") insert ("stall").—(The Earl of Dundee..)

LORD FARINGDON

I am glad the noble Earl has seen his way to accept this amendment. I think it is reasonable. I presume that the reason why "stall" was not originally put in was that it was thought to be covered by the word "market". It occurs to me to wonder whether "vehicle" also covers the word "barrow".

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I will try to satisfy the noble Lord on that point of definition, if I can.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

This Amendment removes the exemption at present provided for "any sale of fish or poultry at a purchase price of less than sixpence." The only reason, so far as we know, is that the provision is unnecessary because it does not happen—there are not any sales of less than sixpence. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 63, leave out lines 19 and 20.—(The Earl of Dundee..)

LORD HAWKE

When I read the Bill, it seemed to be an anomaly that these words should stop short at sixpence. Now my noble friend has put down an Amendment which strikes out this limit completely. In so doing, of course, he has dealt an absolutely devastating blow at the trade in cods' heads. It is a common practice for cods' heads to be sold at sixpence each. Moreover, I am informed that fish cakes are often sold at sixpence apiece. I am sure he does not wish that all the cods' heads should be weighed and sold by weight. It is an impossible business—cod's have different sized heads the same as everybody else, and the arithmetic involved would be quite ridiculous. At the moment, a decent sized cod's head is sixpence, and there you are. It may weigh more or less than the one the next customer gets.

The fish cakes situation is even more serious because they are a foodstuff whose sale is growing, and I have seen these fish cakes made. They are extremely nutritious. They are made from potatoes and the best value fish available on the day at Grimsby and the ports. They are made up into a fish cake of varying weights; they are roughly the same but they are bound to vary a little. It would be an absurd situation if these sixpenny fish cakes all had to be weighed and sold at so much per pound. I believe my noble friend has been misinformed in this matter, and that for some reason or another his advisers have overlooked the flourishing trade in cods' heads as well as in fish cakes. I would ask him if he would not move this Amendment at this stage.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I am afraid I have moved the Amendment. We are now on my noble friend's Amendment.

LORD HAWKE

No: I am opposing the noble Earl's Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

We are discussing Amendment No. 105.

LORD SALTOUN

It seems to me that, if we accept the noble Earl's Amendment, we shall not be able to deal with the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Hawke, which seems to me to be very important.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I will certainly look into the question of cods' heads and fish cakes for sixpence, which my noble friend has so enthusiastically recommended. Our information is that there is no food of this kind for human consumption sold at so low a price, but if I find I am misinformed I will certainly consider whether it ought not to be put into the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I was going to ask whether it would affect the purpose the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, had in mind if the noble Earl carried the Government Amendment. Would it affect his purpose in that the commodities would still be exempted?

LORD HAWKE

If the noble Earl carries his Amendment there is no free limit at all, and my Amendment would make nonsense, because it would not refer to the text of the Bill as amended. I think the happiest solution would be that if my noble friend withdraws his Amendment, as he suggests doing, I shall withdraw mine.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

That is what I was hoping would happen.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

The next Amendment is Amendment No. 106 in the name of Lord Hawke.

LORD FARINGDON

I hope the noble Lord will not withdraw this Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

He has indicated a wish to withdraw it.

LORD HAWKE

I am not aware whether the noble Lord opposite has any particular reason of which I do not know why he should not wish me to withdraw this Amendment. It would not make complete nonsense if accepted, because my noble friend has withdrawn his Amendment. But I did undertake to withdraw mine if the Government withdrew theirs. So I must withdraw it. But there is no reason why the noble Lord should not make a speech on the permission to withdraw.

Amendment moved—

Page (3, line 19, leave out ("less than sixpence") and insert ("sixpence or less.")—(Lord Hawke..)

LORD FARINGDON

I hope the noble Lord will not withdraw this Amendment. If he moves it and carries it, or at any rate gets the Government's guarantee that they will look into it—because it is a similar point to that which he moved earlier—then the clause as it will then be will be satisfactory. Otherwise, if the noble Earl does not decide to press at Report stage his Amendment, then the noble Lord will have to move his at that stage in order to get the effect he wants. It seems to me it would be simpler for him to do it now, and if the noble Earl does not like it he will move an Amendment at Report stage.

LORD SALTOUN

I hope the Government will look into other foods besides fish cakes because cheap foods are so rare in Britain to-day that every avenue should be explored.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Fifth Schedule (continued):

PART III

Cheese

2. Subject to paragraph 4 of this Part of this Schedule, on a sale by retail of any cheese other than cheese pre-packed in a container marked with an indication of quantity by net weight, the quantity of the cheese sold, being—

1. (a) quantity by net weight; or
2. (b) if the cheese is sold in a container which does not exceed the appropriate permitted weight specified in Table B of Pant XIII of this Schedule, quantity either by net weight or by gross weight,

shall be made known to the buyer at or before delivery of the cheese to him.

(4) The following shall be exempted from all the requirements of this Part of this Schedule, that is to say—

1. (a) pre-packed natural cheese which is not of Cheddar or Cheshire type;

6.32 p.m.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH moved to leave out paragraph 2 and to insert: 2. Subject to paragraph 4 of this Part of this Schedule, when sold by retail, any cheese including pre-packed cheese shall be sold by net weight only. The noble Viscount said: I referred or Second Reading to the question of the sale of cheese by weight, and the noble Earl in charge of the measure very kindly wrote to me on that subject, as he did with regard to other points that have been raised; and I thought he made a very good answer to me. Nevertheless, I feel that I must move this Amendment because there is a widespread feeling among housewives about some of these cheeses. I thought that if we discussed the Amendment for a few minutes we could perhaps leave it for further consideration. My Amendment is to leave out paragraph 2 and to insert the words on the Paper, which would mean that, when sold by retail, any cheese, including pre-packed cheese, would be sold by net weight only.

One of the points made to me by the noble Earl in his letter with regard to this commodity was OW Cheddar and Cheshire cheese are expressly included in the sale by weight measures because they are of different variety and composition, and that the other classes of cheese to which reference has been made are so much more difficult to handle—if kept they tend to fructify (if I may use the term of a cheese), to crumble and so on. That may be true about some of the cheeses. It certainly would be true about some forms of Stilton, Danish Blue or the very much older cheese (better known in the West Country) we used to call "Blue Dosset"; they certainly all crumble. But when I think of Wensleydale, and other good classes of cheese like that, I cannot see why they should not be sold by weight. There is no difficulty at all in selling Cheddar and Cheshire by weight, and I think it would be very much appreciated by the consumers' associations and by the housewives if we could go as widely as possible in this very useful commodity—one of the best protein foods one can possibly get and very valuable in a household dietary. If we could have more of it sold by weight, it would be a good thing. I am just trying the Government out on the matter. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 63, line 25, leave out paragraph 2 and insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough..)

LORD HAWKE

My purpose in putting down the Amendment to omit sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 4 is to resolve doubt as to whether the description "Cheddar or Cheshire type" is sufficient as a legal basis for any Bill. We know exactly what the Government intend, but the problem will be that the courts will have to interpret it. The terms might for instance, unbeknownst to me, have some technical significance—say, a cheese made by some special process. But to my mind they mean cheeses of a certain consistency; and even then I do not believe the description is quite watertight, because Cheddar and Cheshire cheeses are intended to he cheeses of such a hard substance that they do not measurably or significantly decrease in weight through time. That may be true with Cheddar. But what about Cheshire? Those of your Lordships who have had the pleasure of playing golf at Hoylake before the war, will remember that on the side table there there were twelve Cheshire cheeses. No. I started a nice clean colour, and No. 12 was all the colours of the rainbow, and disintegrating almost before one's eyes. Therefore, is a description which could embrace No. 12 cheese at Hoylake golf links before the war a sufficiently watertight one to satisfy the courts of what is a sufficiently hard type, which I know the Government mean by this paragraph?

LORD SHEPHERD

I think we are in some difficulty. My noble Leader, as I understood it, moved Amendment 107, which is page 63, line 25, and as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Hawke is moving Amendment 109, to page 63, line 42. I should have thought they were rather different subjects.

LORD ST. OSWALD

My noble friend Lord Hawke informed me earlier that he would like to present his argument in companionship with the moving of this Amendment, although quite obviously they will have to be moved separately. Only one Amendment is, of course, being moved at the moment. The Amendment which is moved by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, and the one which follows it, also in his name, seek Ito obtain two effects: first to require that all cheese sold loose at retail shall be sold by net weight only; and secondly, to require all pre-packed cheese to be marked with its net weight.

As regards loose sales at retail, Part III of this Schedule already provides for all varieties of cheese to be sold in terms of weight. The requirement is that there shall be made known to the buyer either the net weight of the cheese, or the gross weight of the cheese plus its wrapper, provided the weight of the wrapper does not exceed the appropriate limit prescribed in Table B of Part XIII. That particular weight has been argued in earlier Amendments, and I have satisfied myself that the weight of to-day's Order Paper is exactly 2½ drams—the weight allowed for the wrapping of 1 lb. of any substance, including cheese. That may help to illustrate the point for noble Lords. I regret to say that the Marshalled List of Amendments, in its present embodiment, weighs nearly six times that amount. The practical effect of the Amendment would be to preclude the retailer from using a light-weight wrapper when handling and weighing the cheese in the shop, which would be unsatisfactory from the point of view both of hygiene and of the efficient handling of a soft or crumbly cheese. The noble Viscount has brought up this point of the importance of hygiene. As regards pre-packed cheese, unless the retailer is to take the cheese out of the container and weigh it net—which would be highly undesirable, even if practicable—the effect of the Amendment would be, as mentioned, to compel the packer to mark the container with the weight of the cheese.

The arguments against requiring any pre-packed cheese, other than processed cheese and cheese of the Cheddar or Cheshire type, to be sold in terms of weight, or to be marked with their weight, seem to us considerable. That is why I am glad that my noble friend Lord Hawke was prepared to speak on this Amendment, because here the two Amendments overlap considerably and I should have had to repeat myself when he moved his Amendment. Although processed cheese does not change weight much after manufacture and packing, all natural cheeses are inclined to some extent to undergo evaporation or to throw water. "Throwing water", I gather, is a technical term for perspiring in a cheese, and this leads to appreciable loss of weight. Both the extent to which they lose weight for this reason and the weight of the customary wrappings vary considerably.

We decided, after reviewing all the information put before us, to allow the retailer to make the gross weight known to the customer as an alternative to weight markings by the packer, and also to confine the requirements to Cheddar, Cheshire and processed cheese, which together account for 80 per cent. of the trade in cheese. Cheeses vary considerably in their density, even if cut from the same whole cheese—this is a point that has already been raised. Some cheeses may unpredictably lose a high proportion of their weight, and some are packed in relatively heavy wrappings or boxes. So that to cover all cheeses would, of necessity, raise complications not only for the exotic Continental cheeses but for such home-bred products as Stilton and Double Gloucester. To conform with the requirements of this Schedule either these cheeses would have to be marked with the net weight by the packer, or the weight of the customary wrapping or container would have to be reduced, unless of course the retailers were allowed to include a relatively heavy container in the gross weight made known to customers, which would in this case largely defeat the object as far as the customer is concerned. These heavy wrappings, apart from being customary, also commonly serve to keep the cheese in condition or to support it when it is soft or crumbly.

This, in short, seems to us a case in which it is best to protect the consumer of the more popular varieties without unduly complicating the provisions in an attempt to make them comprehensive. The situation is one which can be kept under review, and the Government will not hesitate to bring orders before Parliament to extend the range of cheeses covered, should experience show this to be desirable or practicable.

LORD SHEPHERD

I think we can only repeat once again, so far as Amendment No. 107 is concerned, that we believe that it is right that the customer should pay for the net weight of the article: that is to say, wrapping should not be taken into account. Because of that, I believe that we should not withdraw this Amendment.

LORD ST. OSWALD

I am sure that noble Lords will not consider it discourteous that I did not go through the arguments which were carried on at great length earlier in this stage.

LORD STONHAM

I do not want to pursue that argument either, but I would point out to the noble Lord that he told us that the principal argument against requiring any natural cheese to be marked with net weight was that all natural cheeses are inclined to undergo evaporation leading to appreciable loss of weight. That, of course, I agree with and accept. But it means that, because of that fact, the Government have decided to take all these natural cheeses, other than Cheddar or Cheshire types, out of the Bill. That is the effect of their exclusion under paragraph 4 (a).

LORD ST. OSWALD

In point of fact, while the noble Lord says "all these cheeses", they represent 20 per cent. I have already said that there are 20 per cent., as opposed to 80 per cent. which are within the Bill; and, as I have said, it might be possible to extend the Bill to cover other cheeses. But there is no single individual cheese which would account for more than 2½ per cent. of that remaining 20 per cent.

LORD STONHAM

That is the argument of the housemaid's baby. But I was not going to pursue that particular point. This is a case where the Government say that, because of evaporation, which we all know takes place, these cheeses are taken out of the Bill altogether. I shall be asking later on why they have not taken the same course with other commodities where the rate of evaporation is far greater. What was the reason for taking cheeses out of the Bill in that way instead of dealing with them in the way adopted in different parts of the Bill? That seems to me a relevant and important point—that they have taken these cheeses right out of the Bill simply because they evaporate. But they have not pursued the same course with other commodities which evaporate at an even faster rate.

LORD WOLVERTON

Might I ask my noble friend whether Dutch cheese is covered by the term "Cheddar or Cheshire types"?

LORD ST. OSWALD

That is a technical question. I have already answered "off the cuff" and found that I was wrong on one point. I hesitate to do it again, but I should have thought that it definitely was. I should have said—I am quite ready to be told that I am wrong by the experts—that it certainly would be.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

6.47 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD moved, in paragraph 4 to leave out sub-paragraph (a). The noble Lord said: This Amendment stands in my name, as well of that of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, who does not wish to move it. I should like to move it, however, in order to point out to the Government that of the many imported cheeses, to which our Amendment is directed, coming into this country, some are marked with weights and some are without weights; some are in one shape, and some in another. As I understand it, if the Bill goes forward all these types of cheese can be sold without there being a requirement to put weights on the boxes. I understand that in one self-service store in London there are at the moment being displayed fourteen different types of cheese made up in different ways and at different prices. From the consumer's point of view, and from the British cheese producers' point of view, these types of cheese should be treated just as are Cheddar and Cheshire; they should be stamped with the net weight—not the weight of the boxes, but the net weight of the cheese when it was packed. I believe that this is most important from the consumer's point of view, and I hope that the noble Lord can see our point and will accept it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 63, line 42, leave out sub-paragraph (a)—(Lord Shepherd.)

LORD ST. OSWALD

I can certainly see the noble Lord's point. Regretfully, I have to add to it by saying that I have discovered that Dutch cheese does not come under the classification "Cheddar" and is therefore among the cheeses both imported and outside this Bill. They amount to about 20 per cent. of the trade. Naturally, I will bring the point that the noble Lord has made to the attention of my right honourable friend.

LORD SHEPHERD

If it represents 20 per cent. of the cheese business, that is moist considerable; and for the Bill to exclude 20 per cent. of the trade is, I think, not right.

LORD ST. OSWALD

The point is that some cheeses will have to be excluded. There is no individual cheese which represents more than 2½ per cent. of the 80 per cent. covered, and it is very difficult to know how to set about selecting any further cheeses.

LORD SHEPHERD

I would suggest that during the Recess the noble Lord should go to one of the well-known stores—Sainsbury's. There he will find all the British cheeses pre-packed and stamped with the weight and the price. If J. Sainsbury can do it, so can the producers on the Continent—because as I understand it there are certain countries in Europe which do require what we are now asking. I am sure that that is so, and if it is so on the Continent—and I believe it is also the case in the United States—and we have heard from the noble Lord that it represents about 20 per cent. of the trade, then I feel the House should insist that cheese that is pre-packed shall be clearly stamped with its net weight.

LORD FARINGDON

If I may come to the noble Lord's rescue, may I say that I do not take my noble friend's suggestion too seriously. As something of an amateur on cheese, I am aware that Continental-type cheeses of which he is speaking are not cheeses which one buys by weight. One buys a this, that or the other, and it is not really bought by weight at all. I do not think it is relevant in this case.

LORD WOLVERTON

With all due respect, there is a tremendous amount of Dutch cheese sold and I rather feel that if we are to keep in Cheddar and Cheddar-type cheese then Dutch should go in. It is sold to a large number of people in the ordinary way of life.

LORD HAWKE

I wonder whether, with this particular article as with some others, we are not running into difficulties because of the dual meaning of "pre-packed". That can mean something that has been wrapped up in greaseproof paper in the back quarters of a multiple grocery shop, or something packed in a container of some kind at a Continental factory; and naturally the chance of loss of weight in one case is considerably greater than in the other. I suggest that when the Government are examining this they should see whether, with cheeses, they may not need some distinction between the two.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Fifth Schedule (continued):

PART IV

Bread

2. Bread of any description other than a whole loaf shall be sold only by net weight:

Provided that there shall be exempted from the requirements of this paragraph any bread in a quantity of less than one ounce.

3. A whole loaf of bread of a net weight exceeding ten ounces shall be sold or made for sale only if it is of a net weight of fourteen ounces or a multiple of fourteen ounces:

Provided that there shall be exempted from the requirements of this paragraph any sale in pursuance of a contract for the supply of bread for consumption on the premises of the buyer if the contract provides for each delivery of bread thereunder to be of a specified aggregate quantity of not less than fifty-six pounds and for the weighing of the bread on delivery.

LORD ST. OSWALD moved, in the proviso to paragraph 2, to leave out "less than one ounce" and to insert "ten ounces or less." The noble Lord said: This Amendment relates to the requirement in Part IV of the Fifth Schedule that all bread other than a whole loaf shall be sold by weight only. At present, there is an exemption from this requirement for sales below the customary "petty amounts" exemption limit of 1 ounce. The purpose of the Amendment is to raise the exemption limit to 10 oz. It has been brought to the Government's attention that a market is developing for sales of pre-packed slices of bread in quantities of about 9 oz., which is no doubt a convenient purchase for the single person; and it has been represented that it is inequitable that such sales should be required to be by weight when no such requirement applies to the small loaf of the same weight.

The Government sympathise: with these representations. The requirement that sales of small quantities of bread should be by weight is inherited from enactments passed at a time when retailers commonly cut up loaves; but this is very rare to-day. It is still, however, necessary to ensure that bread must be sold by weight if it is in quantities which might be confused with the ordinary loaves of 14 oz. or multiples of 14 oz.; and the Amendment, in setting the exemption limit at 10 oz or less, will free the trade in small quantities from an irksome requirement without weakening the protection which this Part of the Schedule gives to the buyer of bread in the standard quantities

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I am in some doubt about this point. I have spoken before about bread and complained about this extraordinary differentiation between 14 oz. and 10 oz. units. We were more or less inclined to accept that 10 oz. should be the unit, but now, apparently, there has been strong pressure on the Government —on which I have heard nothing at all—to give these exemptions for the sale of cut bread of weights below 10 oz. It is the kind of thing that often presses more hardly on the poor than anybody else, if we should decide to do this. It is true that in the present circumstances in which we live the pressure may not be quite as great on the community at large as it was in my youth, for then it was quite common for people to buy a quarter or a half a loaf; but it had to be put on the scale. Very often it was not, but it was supposed to be. I do not like this particular step. I believe it is detrimental. I do not see why we need specify this exemption and differ from what was already in the Bill.

LORD HAWKE

I must say I do not think my noble friend made out much of a case for this particular differentiation. One can imagine that the roll weighing an ounce or two might be a perfectly fit subject to be kept outside of weighing, but we are now coming to a loaf of bread. It is a small loaf but it is a type of loaf which presumably the person living alone, or possibly just two people, would like to buy. I do not quite see why it should not be a loaf of a particular weight—because there is no compunction about putting upon the baker elsewhere in the Bill an obligation to produce an exact weight of bread. If he can produce exactly a 14 oz. loaf, then I cannot see that there is any great difficulty in producing, for instance, exactly a 7 oz. loaf; so I think we ought to have a little more explanation as to why any weight up to 10 oz. is left clean out. I would accept anything up to the size of a roll, but this is a loaf of bread.

LORD ST. OSWALD

I am sorry, but I do not know why this confusion should exist. It is not a loaf of bread; it is sliced bread of about 9 oz., and therefore cannot be confused with the heavier loaf—which is the purpose of setting the limit for a loaf.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

May I point out that to-day it is common in the trade 40 sell a sliced loaf of bread of 14 oz. or larger, subject to weight; and, as was put by

the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, if we can require the trade to have a sliced loaf of bread, properly wrapped and with an exact net weight of 14 oz., why cannot we have an exact 9 oz.? I do not think the noble Lord has made out a case for this Amendment. It is some special concession to the trade about which we have heard nothing at all.

LORD STONHAM

Could I ask the noble Earl what justification there is for saying that this would not mean a loaf of bread but that it would mean only slices of bread? If the words "ten ounces or less" are inserted in line 14 instead of the words "less than one ounce" it will mean a loaf of bread, or will apply to a loaf of bread, of any weight up to 10 oz. It does not say that this will be only slices of bread. Can the noble Earl give justification for that?

LORD ST. OSWALD

It has to be slices of bread, for it has to be sliced. It cannot be sold as a loaf.

LORD FARINGDON

But these are sliced loaves. It is a complete loaf in slices.

LORD SHEPHERD

And only when you take off the wrapper do you know that it is a sliced loaf.

LORD AIREDALE

The proviso as amended would read: any bread in a quantity of ten ounces or less so why should that not include a loaf?

On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 15.

CONTENTS
Atholl, D.	Derwent, L.	Newall, L.
Baden-Powell, L.	Devonshire, D.	Newton, L. [Teller.]
Birdrwood, L.	Digby, L.	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Bossom, L.	Dundee, E.	St. Just, L.
Boston, L.	Goschen, V.	St. Oswald, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Gosford, E.	Salisbury, M.
Bucclecuch and Queensberry, D.	Hatherton, L.	Spens, L.
Carrick, E.	Long, V.	Teviot, L.
Conesford, L.	Merrivale, L.	Wolverton, L.
Davidson, V.	Morley, E.

NOT-CONTENTS
Airedale, L.	Latham, L.	Shepherd, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, V.	Lawson, L.	Somers, L.
Amwell, L.	Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Stonham, L.
Burden, L. [Teller]	Macpherson of Drumochter, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Faringdon, L.	Shackleton,	Strang, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

[The Sitting was suspended at ten minutes past seven and resumed at ten minutes past eight o'clock.]

Fifth Schedule (continued):

PART V

Milk

3. Milk shall be pre-packed only—

1. (a) in a quantity of one-third of a pint, half a pint or a multiple of half a pint; and
2. (b) in a container marked with an indication as to which of the quantities aforesaid it contains:

Provided that, in relation to—

1. (i) milk pre-packed in a quantity other than one-third of a pint; and
2. (ii) milk pre-packed in a quantity of one-third of a pint in glass bottles which is so pre-packed for the purpose of its consumption at educational or other establishments of such descriptions as may be prescribed,

sub-paragraph (b) of this paragraph shall not come into force until the expiration of the period of three years beginning with the date of the passing of this Act unless the Board by order appoint an earlier day for the purpose.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH moved, in paragraph 3 (a), to leave out "one-third of a pint". The noble Viscount said: I suppose we have just about a quorum present, but it is a great pity that, on this very important question, we should have so thin a House. The Amendment down in my name, which I now move, brings up the whole history of legislation in regard to the distribution of milk since milk became recognised as constituting such an important trade and service to the community that it came under the control of legislation. The biggest change came with the adoption by the more efficient and progressive members of the distributive milk industry of the glass-bottle container, somewhere about 37 or 38 years ago, and with the introduction of an entirely new form of pasteurisation of milk from that which had previously been practised by the main wholesalers and their retail subsidiaries to preserve the life of milk for commercial purposes.

In the old days, before this move, in the early 1920s, we adopted a certain pasteurisation of milk called flash pasteurisation, when milk was heated to a considerable degree. Then it was served in the ordinary way, through can or jug and the like, and certainly it lasted longer than the other milk which was delivered straight through distributors from the farms. But the first attempt to do that was, of course, a recognition that milk was not very clean and that it contained a great many germs; and the introduction of the new system was a follow-up of the lengthening of the life of milk during its distribution by having a form of pasteurisation which did not destroy certain basic lactic qualities of milk which, among other things, were essential to bone-making. That meant the opening of an era in the milk-distributing trade which was progressive, which was costly in capital and which was bound up with a new form of distribution. In consequence, during the last 40 years the trade has grown and grown, as has the consumption of liquid milk, with the help of correlated efforts by farmers, and more especially since the introduction of the Milk Marketing Board, until now this country is making a progressive chase after the highest milk-consuming countries in the world.

Now this little matter, introduced as a sort of side-wind into the Weights and Measures Bill, to make it legal for the first time to sell as a statutory measure in thirds of a pint, raises the whole issue of the costs and success of the milk industry as a whole. Because whatever effects it may have on the distributive trade in the country, its correlating effect on farming industry costs each year are just the same as on the other side of the industry.

If you take the history of the weights and measures side, you find, first, that you had the regulation of the measurement of milk in the Statute of 1926, which laid it down that you would be bound in future to sell milk only in multiples of half-pints. And that is still the law, and will be unless this clause in the Bill is passed in its present form. The only exception taking place to-day arose out of a purely welfare matter, and that is the recognition of the necessity for increasing the provision for milk to be fed to schoolchildren. After various experiments, when for a time parents or children contributed to the cost of the school milk a very small sum, I think a halfpenny, the milk was served in half-pint bottles. I think the last order, according to the advice given to me, settling this matter of its being possible to escape the grip of the 1926 provision on this one question of school milk, was the order of 1959. That was the last order made by the law.

This received special comment by myself, because it followed immediately after the failure of a Private Bill introduced in the other place in 1958, through which it was sought to gain legal authority to sell milk by thirds of a pint. The Bill excited so little interest among Members of the other place that, although they had three attempts in Committee to make progress with the Bill, it failed and was what we call "clouted out" and into non-effect. Now the Government seem to have been persuaded to bring in the same provision in this Bill, to make thirds of a pint legal measure for sale. I think we want to give very special attention to this point before we go any further with it, and that is why I am moving, in the first place, to leave out this sub-paragraph.

Now, what are the facts about the costings of milk distribution? I rarely get up and speak to your Lordships as an expert on any question, but on this matter I claim some expert knowledge. I have been dealing with this matter for 40 years, and I submit that I had as much as any individual in the country to do with the wide expansion of the sale, and provision for the sale, of pasteurised milk in bottles, with the possible exception of two other men, Mr. Leonard Maggs of the United Dairies, and Mr. Knell of the Express Dairies, who is still living. I myself toured the country speaking about milk, then as a possible commodity being conveyed to the public with death in the can instead of life; and the only way out was to get the public to agree to have pasteurised milk served in really efficient containers which would not allow of any further contamination.

This meant that we had to find a container which was not purchased by the consumer, which had to give the quantitative measure required under the law, which would meet these hygienic conditions, and which would be as economic as possible. The bottle manufacturers gave their whole efforts to experiments which would produce the required type of bottle, and in the end we got what we wanted. Then we had to find some method of dealing economically with measurement and filling, and expensive machines had to be bought which would adequately fulfil measurement requirements and properly cap the bottles to prevent further contamination in the course of distribution and use. For all this we had to find an economic basis.

What are the facts about the costs? I will come to the point about the third-of a-pint bottle in a moment, but I want the whole to be in your Lordships' minds. To-day every pint milk bottle costs about 5d., maybe slightly more at the moment. Experience shows that on the average a milk bottle is capable of doing a minimum of fifty journeys, so that the actual cost per pint of milk is one-tenth of a penny. It has always been argued that it might be more economic to use some other kind of container—for instance, paper cartons of some kind—but in fact the cost of a carton for a pint of milk is at least one penny, ten times as much per pint as the bottle which makes fifty journeys. The other saving which could be made, it is argued by the supporters of the paper carton, is that the carton which is destroyed immediately after use would effect a saving in expensive bottle-washing machinery and in bottle washing.

I hope that some of your Lordships will have seen the bottle-filling machines which are used. I have studied the various types and their use and I know that the pasteurising and bottling of milk has been reduced to a fine art. On the present system the cost is extraordinarily low; otherwise the present high wages—high compared to those in the old days—both in the dairy and in the actual distributive rounds, would make milk much more expensive than it is to-day, even with the amount of Government subsidy that is involved in milk from its production to its final sale.

Let us look at the cost of bottling. It is easy to see that with automatic bottling on a machine the cost per bottle of filling and handling twenty-four bottles instead of eight, to supply the same quantity of milk, is bound to be severely increased. That is proved by the experience of all the trade. Then I would go to this point: that if you leave matters as in the Bill, you have simply to make legal measure of third-pint bottles and you immediately have a demand for a wide distribution of bottles of that size. Then I would bring your Lordships up to the point that there you incur an enormous increase in charges. Any of us who are interested in the general field of distributive costs cannot fail to see that to-day the cost of distribution has increased enormously. There has been a revolution in the last four years in the bakery trade. Why? It is because, in the main, of the cost of distributing each loaf to each house. In the case of milk the circumstances are similar. You no longer get so many large communities of working-class people housed so closely together, with immediate door-to-door delivery up long streets. Millions of them have been rehoused in houses with gardens, with a wall to be made by the distributor at every point. Whereas we used to be able to distribute a loaf of bread at less than ½d. a quartern loaf, at a minimum it now costs 2½d., and in some districts as much as 3d. a quartern loaf. That is a very high cost of distribution.

In regard to milk distribution I would challenge comparison of the British day-to-day milk distribution with that of any other place in the world. There is no better distribution than that you find when you wake up in the morning. If you have a servant, the servant does it, but if not, you go to the door and them on the doorstep is milk—bottled, hygienic, sealed, pasteurised—ready for immediate use. On what sort of profit to those who handle the business, when you take all these costs into account? It has to be remembered that, because (and I think rightly so) of the Government subsidy which is involved in the purveying of this very important and perfect national food, the costs of distribution have to be carefully examined, as well as the cost of production on the farm. What happens? Every year the distributive costs are carefully examined and on their actual costs producers press for the minimum sum they require.

As I was assured recently (the noble Lord, Lord Spens, was at the same meeting) by an expert in the distributive trade, they are never allowed in these days to have a net profit, after meeting all their costs on the distribution, on a gallon of milk of more than 2d., on what is an average distributive price for milk of 5s. 4d. a gallon; and that 2d. has to be subject to income tax. It is an amazing story when you look at it. I do not think there is another industry of any size (in the country which can possibly have reached such a stage of efficiency as to be able to work upon what you will find (to be, if you work it out net, tax paid, less than 3 per cent. on turnover.

What happens if you go for one-third pints? If you bring it within the general basis of house-to-house distribution, unless you were to make this entirely permissive, you would have such an increase in your overall costs that you would, without a doubt, have to raise the price of milk to the consumer. If, on the other hand, you make it permissive you will find that the great majority of the milk distributors will not handle one-third pints at any price. If you doubt my word on that, I would say that I know from experience that in vast areas of the country to-day—I would not say in every district—the trade itself refuses to deliver (half-pints because of the extra cost involved. That applies to many important districts, such as Portsmouth, Sheffield and Doncaster. I could give details if I wanted lo detain you and look up a lot of papers, but I do not want to do that.

It perhaps sounds to our Lordships as though this is a case made on behalf of the distributors. Not so—it affects the farmer just as much. Those of us who have experience of farming—and there must be many in this House besides myself—and who are producers of milk, know perfectly well that every year when it comes to the Review of Prices for Agriculture, there is an adjustment. The farmer is supposed to have obtained a very high increase in efficiency on the farm, and so here is a lump sum taken off at the beginning (that appears again from the White Paper on Agriculture issued today), but on no fixed or certain basis whatever. I hope your Lordships will look at that paragraph in the White Paper.

When it comes to arguing the case for the price of milk to the farmer, having had the Review of Prices in February each year by the Government, the distributor is not asking too much in seeking to retain his twopence net, subject to income tax on the price, whatever his increase in costs may be. What has been the experience of the farmer? The distributor is always able to get back, but in the general adjustment of the price the farmer has steadily gone down in his return on his milk, in spite of all the extra cost that he has had to bear. So if the Government add to the distributive costs by a measure of this kind, the ultimate repercussion is upon the price received by the farmer. I should like to say a lot more, but I think I have made my case. So please will you reply to the charge that I have made that it is unwise for the Government to include this in the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 64, line 35, leave out ("one-third of a pint").—(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough..)

8.33 p.m.

LORD SPENS

In the course of my professional life it has been my fortune, as a rule, of late years to lead other people in stating a case. But tonight I am proud to add a word to the best opening of the case against this third of a pint bottle that I have ever heard stated in either House of Parliament. The noble Viscount rightly says that he is an expert. We have known him as an expert on this particular subject for many years. He has left practically nothing out that ought to be said on this occasion. I am sure he must have impressed your Lordships that, although this looks like an innocent few words in this Bill, the effect on the industry, not only on the distributing trade but on the producers and on the consumption of milk in the country, may be very great indeed.

I do not want to add very much. I should like, if I am allowed, to discuss my second Amendment, the proviso on the next page, because that goes to the third of a pint bottles. As the noble Viscount has told your Lordships, the situation is that in the 1926 Act the third of a pint bottles were never contemplated at all. The only measures for milk that were made legal were the half-pints and the pints. But tucked away in Section 8 of the 1926 Act was a provision that nothing contained in the foregoing sections should affect sales in petty amounts. When the milk-in-schools scheme was introduced in the middle of the war the Government made use of that particular provision in order to start the distribution to schools of milk in one-third pint bottles, on the basis that each bottle cost only a halfpenny and therefore it was only a sale of petty amounts. Whether that was a proper construction to put on the Act may be doubtful in law. But at any rate it went on for a number of years until, after the war, when prices were going up and more and more schools were taking it, many thousands of one-third pint bottles were being distributed each day in schools.

The Government then brought in orders under various Acts to make legal this distribution of milk in one-third pint bottles, and to-day the legality of the distribution still depends on an order made under one of those Acts. It is not unnatural, therefore, that the Government want to see it laid down in the Bill that the milk-in-schools scheme should be legally carried out in accordance with legislation. And it is for that reason I have suggested that, if the Government will accept the noble Viscount's Amendment and get rid of the one-third pint bottles generally, it might be wise to put in a proviso that: milk shall not be pre-packed in a quantity of one-third of a pint except for the purpose of its consumption at educational or other establishments of such description as may be prescribed. That would make legal for the future the distribution in one-third pint bottles to schools.

May I add a few words to what the noble Viscount said? People may say, "Well, you are already making it. There are makers making one-third pint bottles; there are distributors distributing one-third pint bottles." That is true; but that is distribution in bulk, day by day, to one particular school. It is a reasonably economic item in the costs of the distributors, but it is one on which they certainly do not make any sort of profits. But the distribution to individual houses of one third pint bottles would be just about as uneconomic as anything can be.

I live in a flat in the Temple when I am in London. There the milkmen come round, I think, three times a day; they leave hundreds of bottles of milk at the various offices and residential flats, climb the stairs, take a considerable time to do it, and leave pint bottles, with an occasional half-pint bottle. If they had to do that with one-third pint bottles, the time it would take up, with the space on the trollies, would increase enormously the cost of distribution. In addition, of course, there is the cost of machinery, very large machinery. If it is made universally legal to do this, the glass manufacturers, bottle manufacturers, would need more machinery to make the one-third pint bottles in much greater number than they are made at present. The distributors would have to have more machinery in order to clean them, and to fill them, and various operations of that sort; and inevitably, as the noble Viscount said, the total cost of the distribution of milk would go up very much in this country.

I am deeply interested from the point of view of the producers, and it has been alleged that there is a demand in this country for one-third pint bottles. I have tried everywhere to find out what substance there is for that claim. It is a very sentimental, nice thing to get up and say "Yes, there are a whole lot of old-age pensioners, or young office girls, who want one-third pint bottles". You try to find some demand of that sort. But, so far as we can see, the demand does riot really exist. If it does exist at all, it is not substantial enough to cause this enormous difference to the trade with the additional cost of production that must come about. From such knowledge as I have—I have a good deal—I am absolutely satisfied that it would be a retrograde step of the worst type generally to introduce these one-third pint bottles. I believe that it would put up costs and result, in the end, in less consumption of milk, and would be bad for the country. As the noble Viscount said, we have an absolutely unique system in this country for the production and distribution of milk. I have looked at it in other countries, and I know that the noble Viscount is absolutely right in saying that we have something that no other country has at present. I beg your Lordships to hesitate long before you allow these words to remain in the Bill, because I believe that to do so will be an entirely retrograde step on your Lordships' part.

LORD HAWKE

We have listened to a devastating case against the packing of milk in one-third pint bottles. But I am riot satisfied whether or not this Amendment would, at the same time, make it impossible to pack milk in cartons of anything less than half a pint. That is one of the methods of the future, because vending machines are increasing rapidly in numbers; and it seems to me that one has to take account of the potentialities of the vending machine and the quantities that are required to be put in a carton selling for sixpence, and so on, and not to make it impossible by putting anything too hard and fast in the Bill.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

May I say that, so far as I know from inquiries I have made, there is no vending machine selling less than half a pint in a carton to-day. There is no question about that in my particular Amendment.

LORD STONHAM

While it may be true, as my noble Leader has said, that there is no vending machine selling less than half a pint, it may well be, as the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said, that it is a convenient size. But I should have thought—this is my only reason for intervening in this debate, the subject having been completely covered by the two speeches to which we have listened—that Amendment No. 113 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Spens, on which he did not, if I recall, dilate to any extent, would completely cover the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, because it proposes to introduce the words in the case of any container other than a glass bottle.

LORD SPENS

May I interrupt for a moment? That goes to the case of marking. It is really rather a different point, and it applies to any glass bottles—pint. half pint, et cetera.

LORD STONHAM

Quite so. I should have thought that that was one of the major reasons for this Amendment, which I wholly support—in other words, the Government pre-suppose that the one-third pint and the half-pint bottles could easily be confused in the mind of the consumer because there is not very much difference between them. They are certainly different but, seen apart, one might not know whether it was a half-pint or a one-third pint. Therefore, there would be a case for marking the bottles. But, as my noble Leader has said, it would and so enormously to the cost that it would penalise the consumer and, indeed, would gravely handicap the producers of milk for that particular reason. Therefore I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment so that one-third pint bottles will be supplied only for educational purposes.

I still believe, with all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Spens, that the point has been covered, and the carton will in fact be covered, by his Amendment. I recall that when in the Public Accounts Committee of another place, we were discussing margins on milk, the evidence was overwhelming that the supply of one-third pint bottles to educational establishments was quite uneconomic, and in some areas the Minister of Education had the most acute difficulty in getting milk distributors to distribute one-third pint bottles at educational establishments. It is quite uneconomic. Therefore to foist this particular measure on to the farming industry and the milk distributing industry, for purely academic reasons, with no real public demand, would, I think, be quite un-pardonable. I believe that we have accepted as a principle with regard to the Bill that we want the utmost protection for consumers, provided that we do not impose impossible conditions upon the producers; and I would submit that this is an impossible condition. I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

8.46 p.m.

LORD TEVIOT

This is a subject with which I have been mixed up for many years; and if the result of the Amendment of the noble Lord will be that less milk will be distributed I shall be greatly pleased. I will give your Lordships very simple reasons why. We know that every effort is made to keep milk pure—like other farmers, I have made that effort myself. I have not a herd at the moment, but I had one. My cows were tested, and every effort was made to produce the milk and to have it in an absolutely pure condition. Let me just take your Lordships along the way that this milk goes. With the greatest difficulty and expense, it is produced in an absolutely pure condition, and eventually it arrives at the bottling machinery. There it is pasteurised, in which I do not believe at all (and I will give a very good reason for that in a minute), and then it is bottled and hermetically sealed. In the end, as my noble friend has said, there are two bottles at the front door or the back door in the morning.

Let us just consider what happens. Perhaps it is a rainy, windy day, and dust and every kind of thing is blowing all over the place. Out comes the housewife to get her milk. Round the top of the bottle, no matter how much one may try to do away with it, there will be a certain amount of dust from the wind and the rain and the road. The housewife, a most excellent person, or somebody else, takes these bottles and scoops out the stopper—and then what happens to it? We all know. The noble Lord opposite knows just as well as I do the danger of exposing milk to the surroundings. We know that milk picks up every germ it can. Then the milk is poured out, with the family sitting round the table. It is all very well for noble Lords to laugh but I know that this is true. The milk is poured out and it is not finished with. It is poured into a jug that is not hygienic, and again it is not finished with. Then it is put into the sink to keep cool until the next meal. It will pick up anything that is going about. We know that.

I have the greatest concern with regard to the health of the people who drink milk. I do not drink it myself except just a drop in a cup of tea. When I have been abroad and travelled in certain parts of the world, what have I found? That they do not drink milk emanating from the cow; they drink soya-bean milk which does not pick up disease of any sort. I have tried to explain to the Committee in the simplest way possible that if the result of this little debate here to-day on milk produces less milk to supply to the people generally, I shall be quite delighted. When I was on the council of a children's hospital I arranged for the milk to be supplied from a farmer who took the greatest care to produce it in the best possible and most suitable condition. What had we to do? We had often to deal with it before the children could digest it. So, by and large, I am not in favour of increasing the supply of milk to the children of our country; and I believe that if we agree with that, we shall help the health of the people and the children.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

Before the noble Earl replies to us, I should just like to point out to my old and noble friend Lord Teviot that all the statistical records of the last 40 years are dead against him. Up ti11 1920 the statistics of the deaths of the youth of the population from diphtheria, from scarlet fever, from scarlatina and from infantile diarrhœa were devastating. There has been a constant and steady growth in health and a lessening of the death statistics in children, since 1922. It has never gone back. In the measure of physical development, with the aid of more milk in the schools the whole youthful population is stronger and more physically fit.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I think this is a thoroughly good conservative Amendment. We have not been allowed to produce bottles of one-third of a pint for 34 years; and most of your Lordships who have spoken, including the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, think that we should resist the revolutionary innovation of this Bill which allows such a very dangerous thing to be done. I think there is no one to whom your Lordships would listen with greater interest on this subject than the noble Viscount opposite from every point of view, as a producer of milk himself as a dairy farmer, and also as one who has so much experience in the retail sale of milk to a very large number of our countrymen.

I was greatly interested in the figures which the noble Viscount gave about the economics of supplying these relatively small quantities of milk in bottles or cartons—they can both he used—of one-third of a pint. It seemed to me that he was right in saying it is un-economic to produce and distribute milk in quantities of one-third of a pint to lawyers who live in the Temple and, indeed, to ordinary individual householders everywhere; but perhaps not so uneconomic to users who can take a very large quantity, such as schools or perhaps large restaurants, canteens or milk bars, which may be able to take very large quantities of these one-third pint bottles of milk if they think they can sell them to the public without losing money. I was very much interested by what my noble friend Lord Teviot said, but I am afraid I cannot quite agree to adjudge this Amendment from the point of view of its being desirable to sell less milk. I want people in this country to drink more milk.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

A pint of milk a day, not one-third.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

Well, "Drinka pinta milka day" by all means. We have taken advice on this from a great many quarters. Of course, it is not always the same. The Hodgson Committee was in favour of allowing one-third pint bottles to be sold, because they thought it might result in more milk being consumed. That was a long time ago.

LORD SHEPHERD

I do not think so.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I think you had better look that up again. They varied their first view, and came down against the issue of one-third pint bottles for the general use of the public. They would accept it only in the case of the special channels which you have suggested.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

Yes, but they were in favour of doing it through these channels, and they are strongly supported now by the Milk Marketing Board, who hold the view that this revolutionary innovation allowing milk to be sold in quantities of one-third of a pint would have the effect of greatly increasing the consumption of milk. We naturally understand the point of view of the dairymen who do not want to be compelled—nobody wants to compel them—to sell milk in uneconomic quantities, and who may perhaps be afraid that, if it is even only permitted to sell milk in these small quantities, some of their competitors may try to undercut them. We quite understand that point of view. As to the National Farmers' Union, whom we are naturally consulting, there is nothing very definite that they have decided yet.

LORD STONHAM

Could I interrupt the noble Earl? I have in my pocket a letter from the National Farmers' Union saying that they strongly support this Amendment and are strongly opposed to the introduction of one-third of a pint milk bottles. I have it in my pocket and I can send it on to the noble Earl. He may be quite sure that their view is that they strongly support this Amendment.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

Does that come from Scotland or England?

LORD STONHAM

It comes from England; from Agriculture House, Knightsbridge.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I should like to look at it, if I may. But I would point out to your Lordships that, under this Bill, if the permissive one-third of a pint is introduced, no dairyman will be compelled to sell quantities of milk of that measure. If he thinks it is uneconomic, and if he thinks he is going to lose money over it, he need not do it. If he is going to lose money, his remedy, of course, is to keep on with the present quantities of one pint or half a pint. It is only if the consumer, whether it be through the medium of milk bars, canteens or schools, desires one-third of a pint to be supplied that it will be supplied. We are not compelling people to sell milk in measures of one-third of a pint: it is entirely permissive. There is no compulsion whatsoever on any dairyman who thinks that it will not be to his advantage to supply milk in these small quantities, to do so. It would perhaps be a little odd, in a Bill which is primarily intended for the protection of the consumer, to perpetuate a law which might prevent the consumer from getting what he wants. If he wants one-third of a pint, and if he is willing to pay an economic price for it, why should he not be allowed to have it?

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Hear, Hear!

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I am not suggesting that anybody should be compelled to supply it if it is not economical. Let them charge an economical price for it if they do decide to sell it. If the consumer wants milk in these small quantities, he should pay an economical price. It may well be that it will be found to be uneconomical to provide individual householders with little bottles containing a third of a pint, which many of them may not want. On the other hand, it may be true, as the Milk Marketing Board have put to us, that people who go to milk bars or canteens may feel that half a pint of milk is rather more than they want and that a great deal more milk would be consumed if one-third of a pint bottles of milk were available.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

May I just say, on that point, that I am not complaining of the case the noble Earl is putting; but it does not stand up to economic examination. We are running in this country to-day a campaign for spreading—not what Lord Teviot wants—the consumption of milk. It is subsidised in a threefold sense. It is subsidised by the Milk Marketing Board on behalf of the farmers; it is subsidised by the trade itself, on behalf of the distributors; and I believe there is a Government consideration of the same sort. Now, the National Farmers' Union strongly object to the proposal that milk and cream should be pre-packed in one-third of a pint sizes as at present, other than for schools. That is the farmers' view. I think I have fairly stated the case for the distributive and bottling trades, and so nothing remains but a sort of hazy case which apparently the Government have brought forward almost out of the blue. Therefore I think perhaps the noble Earl might revise his view of the matter.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I certainly do not agree that it is a hazy case at all. The noble Viscount, as he is entitled to do, has put the case very well on behalf of the dairymen, the distributors, and now the National Farmers' Union. As a farmer myself, I pay very great attention to that, of course. But I feel that the consumers ought to be considered, too, as well as the views of the Milk Marketing Board. I do not think he has entirely demonstrated the justice of a proposal merely by showing that it is supported by the National Farmers' Union and the dairymen. I do not think that is quite sufficient.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I might point out that have spent a lifetime with a movement which is composed entirely of consumers. At present there are enrolled nearly 13 million of them, and I would not dare get up and speak against the general interest of the consumer. If I could find one thing at all in this proposal worthy of adoption by the consumer, I would support it; but all this will do is to raise the price to them.

9.3 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

On the question of raising the price, I am sure that if it would not be economic, the consumer would prefer to buy other quantities. But does that mean that we should make it illegal for the consumer to buy one-third of a pint if he wants to? I am not suggesting that he must, but is it really a good thing, in a Bill which is designed mainly for the protection of the consumer, to prohibit the consumer from buying one-third of a pint if he feels that half a pint is too much? I cannot agree 100 per cent. with the noble Viscount that we are making it compulsory for the consumer to drink one-third of a pint and not more: I want him to drink more. But I think he should be led on and encouraged by drinking a little, so that he may drink more later.

The only real way in which this alteration impinges on consumer interests is in the danger that the consumer might perhaps confuse a one-third pint bottle, if he were not in a very good visual condition, with a half-pint bottle, and thus be cheated. But the Hodgson Committee thought there was little real danger in this, and I agree. I am going to argue a little later on that there is no danger of the consumer confusing one-third of a pint of beer with half a pint, although there might perhaps be some danger of his confusing two-fifths of a pint with half a pint. The same applies to a great many other commodities. But we want to do what is best for everybody. We want to encourage the sale of milk and to encourage the consumer to take the quantity of milk which suits him best. We want to consider the representations not only of the co-operative, societies and of the National Farmers' Union, but of everybody else who is interested in the sale of milk.

I must maintain that we cannot surrender now the position which I am defending on the provisions of this Bill, which seem to me to be the right method to protect the consuming interest. All we are doing is to permit the supply of a quantity of milk which for 24 years has been supplied to schools and which we know to be acceptable to a large number of people drinking milk at milk bars, restaurants and canteens. We do not think that it should be made illegal. We will consider, as we always do, what the noble Viscount has said, and the letter from the National Farmers' Union which he has produced and which I had not seen. Naturally we want to consider the views of the farmers and distributors before we finally put this through. I cannot agree to make any concession now on what is right, so far as I can see, and merely a permissive piece of legislation. But I believe that it would be unwarrantable if we did not consider sympathetically everything the noble Viscount has said, in his extremely interesting and well-informed speech, obviously made with deep conviction on the subject, as well as with great knowledge. Therefore we certainly will consider it before we come to a final decision.

LORD SHEPHERD

I have listened to the noble Earl carefully and, if I may say so, his case will not stand up to much examination.

A NOBLE LORD

Nonsense!

LORD SHEPHERD

The noble Lord, probably like the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, does not accept milk as a staple diet of his country.

LORD TEVIOT

I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but I find that he is going to criticise what I said. With regard to pasteurisation, is he aware that some years ago there was a case, I think in Belfast, of an epidemic of typhoid? Nobody could find out how it arose. Eventually it was discovered that, although all the milk that went into the town was pasteurised, there happened to be a carrier of typhoid and the disease was picked up by the milk and distributed all over the town. Milk is a very dangerous food; do not forget it.

LORD SHEPHERD

I do not wish to cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, about this. I believe that the facts are there to show that milk brought our children through the last world war, and that it is largely due to milk that we can boast that our children are equal, if not superior, to the children of any other part of the world. I do not want to argue with the noble Lord; our argument is with the Government. The noble Earl said that we should permit one-third pint bottles because restaurants and milk bars want that size. Is the noble Earl going to tell me that restaurants and milk bars will be taking one-third pint bottles of milk; that for every consumer that comes into the shop and asks for a glass of milk or a milk shake they are going to open a one-third pint bottle of milk? Of course the milk is delivered in bulk. This is the point that I must make to the noble Earl. He says that he stands at this stage in support of the consumer. To me this is rather ironic, because in the course of the debate from the very beginning it was the consumer who was being protected by noble Lords on this side and a few from the other side.

My noble Leader was against the one-third pint because he knew that if this was introduced and a fair-sized minority of consumers required a one-third pint bottle, the cost would be put on to the broad masses of the people who consumed the pints. My noble Leader has said (and I do not think it has been disputed) that if you bring into being the distribution of a one-third pint bottle it will be uneconomic. The noble Earl himself has admitted that. If it is uneconomic, on whose back will it be placed? Will it be placed on the consumer who buys a one-third pint bottle of milk; or will it be on the broad mass of the people, particularly families with children? Surely it will be placed on the back of the largest consumer. It is quite uneconomic to bring in a one-third pint bottle of milk. There may be a few people who want it, but the broad mass of the people will be wanting a half-pint and one pint.

Do not let us, then, raise the cost of distribution: because it is in distribution of milk (I do not know whether my noble Leader would agree with me, but the highest cost in milk is surely in the distribution and not in the production) that the cost counts, and if we raise that it will have to be borne by the people who use milk. I hope that the Committee will not let a loophole appear, but will reject the Government's suggestion that we should bring in one-third pint bottles of milk.

LORD SHACKLETON

I am not sure if I understood the noble Earl correctly. Did he say that the Hodgson Committee saw no danger in the existence of one-third pint bottles for use generally in retail?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

What the Committee said was that they did not think there was any danger that the public would be liable to deception because of a similarity in a one-third pint and a half pint. We have to be careful sometimes not to allow commodities to be sold in quantities which are too close to each other, in case the public might be deceived. That is all I said about the advice of the Hodgson Committee.

LORD SHACKLETON

May I interrupt the noble Earl?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I should like to finish what I have to say. I have done my best to meet the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and gone to the extreme limits. There is no question of compelling anybody, if it is uneconomic, to produce milk in one-third pints; and if it is not economic, then they will not do it. I honestly do not think that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, really encouraged me to go as far as I had hoped to go in meeting the case which had been put, and which I should still like to do.

LORD SHACKLETON

I am sorry to return to this point, but I think the noble Earl is misleading the Committee on the Hodgson Committee's Report.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

No, I am not.

LORD SHACKLETON

Perhaps I may quote to the noble Earl (I will apologise if I am wrong) what they say. They say in paragraph 301: We do not consider the possibility of the confusion between ¼ pint and ½ pint sizes is of serious importance in industrial canteens or restaurants; but if ¼ pint bottles were legalised for general delivery purposes, there is no doubt that, as the law now stands, they could he manufactured in such a way as would be likely to cause confusion in the mind of the purchaser as to what the quantity actually was and thereby promote mistakes or actual fraud in the course of retail delivery. The noble Earl ought also to bear in mind that the Hodgson Committee recommended that one-third pints Should be made legal where the milk is intended for sale for consumption on the premises of the ultimate seller.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

There are requirements in the Bill that bottles of milk shall be marked on the cap with the actual contents of the bottle. Does the noble Lord really consider that, if they are marked on the cap with the quantity of milk they contain there is a terribly serious risk that large numbers of people will be deceived and will be persuaded to buy a bottle containing one-third of a pint in the belief that it is really half a pint? I do not think so, and I do not think the Hodgson Committee's advice would lead us to believe that.

LORD STONHAM

It may be my fault that I did not make it clear earlier to the noble Earl that the National Farmers' Union were wholeheartedly supporting these Amendments. I thought he would be aware of the fact. They wrote to me some ten days ago and asked me if I would table these Amendments which are similar to those—

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

May I interrupt the noble Lord? I have already said that I would consider the point of view which they have put forward. I do not know whether the noble Lord wants it all over again. We have now been discussing this Amendment for one hour and ten minutes. I thought I had done my best to go to the extreme limits I could in saying that I would consider all the arguments put forward, including those of the National Farmers' Union.

LORD STONHAM

The noble Earl said he was not aware of this, and I thought it was my fault. I was explaining it, and that is why I did not take part in the debate. They certainly are strongly in favour of these Amendments.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I am obliged for the detailed and courteous reply the noble Earl has given to us on this matter. I am wholly dissatisfied with the substance of it, and it is quite obvious that we cannot reach a decision tonight, because he has promised to consider it again. A real study of the paragraphs (I do not want to delay the Committee by reading them out) on this matter by the Hodgson Committee will show that there is a strong case for our Amendment as it stands. If my noble friend Lord Spens agrees, I propose therefore that we should withdraw this Amendment to-night, with the certainly that we will put it down again on the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.18 p.m.

LORD SPENS moved, in paragraph 3 (b) after "marked" to insert: (in the case of any container other than a glass bottle)

The noble Lord said: May I just add a word, very shortly, on this? This is the question of marking. As the Bill stands, all bottles, whether pint, half pint or third of a pint (if they come into being) will have to be marked. They can be marked in only two ways: either on the glass itself by the bottle makers when they are made, or on the cap afterwards. As regards the marking of the bottle itself, of course it will add to the cost of manufacture. The sizes speak for themselves. As regards the marking of the caps, the situation at present is that there is this very expensive machinery for filling the bottles to within three-eighths of the top, and the machine automatically stamps the top on. I have seen the machines working, and I am told that technically it will be an extremely difficult matter to make machines which will actually mark the different quantities on the caps. This is going to add to the cost of production either by the purchase of new machines or by altering existing machines. It is all going to add to the cost of production and sooner or later it is bound to come back on to the consumer in the form of some addition to the price.

I should have thought that nobody is going to mistake a pint or half-pint or one-third pint unless the light or other reasons make it impossible to see clearly, and that the present system by which you rely on the size of the bottle is really enough so far as bottles are concerned. I am saying nothing about cartons, but so far as bottles are concerned it would be a quite useless cost to have to mark the bottles to show what the contents were. I may add there are 300 million bottles a year, to give some idea of what the cost is going to be; you are dealing in figures of 300 million, which is a very large and substantial job. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 64, line 37, after ("marked") insert ("(in the case of any container other than a glass bottle)").—(Lord Spens.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

It may be perhaps expensive to mark the tops of the bottles; I do not know. But there is certainly no question of anybody being required to emboss the bottles.

LORD SPENS

I am sure my noble friend in considering everything will consider this economic matter as well, and in those circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD SHEPHERD

On behalf of my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, may I rise in regard to Amendment No. 115? The noble Earl took some offence to the words I used when speaking on Amendment No. 112. I apologise to him. I appreciate that he was going to look at the point raised in this Amendment, and as a matter of conciliation may I tell him that we do not propose to proceed with Amendments Nos. 115, 116 and 117?

Fifth Schedule (continued):

PART VI

Intoxicating liquor

2. Unless pre-packed in a securely closed container, beer and cider shall be sold by retail only in a quantity corresponding to an imperial measure included in paragraph 1 of Part IV of the Third Schedule to this Act.

3. Unless pre-packed as aforesaid, intoxicating liquor of any of the following descriptions, that is to say, gin, rum and whisky, shall be sold by retail for consumption on the premises at which it is sold only—

1. (a) in, or in a multiple of, one of the following quantities, that is to say, one-quarter, one-fifth and one-sixth of a gill; and
2. (b) if there is displayed on those premises, in such a position and manner as to be readily available without special request for inspection by the buyer before the sale is made, a statement in writing showing in the case of each of the liquors aforesaid in which of the quantities aforesaid that liquor is offered for sale on those premises;

and, without prejudice to the provisions of section twenty-three of this Act, if subparagraph (b) of this paragraph is contravened, the occupier of the said premises shall be guilty of an offence:

4. Intoxicating liquor of any description shall be pre-packed in a closed container only if the container is marked with an indication of quantity by capacity measurement:

Provided that there shall be exempted from the requirements of this paragraph—

1. (a) wine and sweets;
800
2. (b) any other liquor in a quantity of less than five fluid ounces or more than half a gallon.

LORD HAWKE moved to add to paragraph 2: Provided that beer shall be exempt from the requirements of this paragraph when it forms a constituent of a mixture containing soft drinks of any description. The noble Lord said: This Amendment is in the general interests of sobriety. At the moment if anybody wants to buy a mixture of beer and lemonade or ginger beer, commonly known as "shandy-gaff", the beer has to be measured out in some form of imperial measure and is probably likely to be a half pint, or possibly a quarter-pint. But customers' tastes vary, and some people like very little beer in their shandy-gaff. In fact I have often heard a drink known as "lemon and a dash" asked for, and I always have assumed that to be lemonade with a dash of beer. As the Bill stands, that would be illegal unless the "dash" managed to fit in with one of the imperial measures in the Fourth Schedule. Therefore, I think it would be a good idea to exempt beer when sold as a mixture combined with one of the soft drinks. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 65, line 9, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Hawke..)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I agree with my noble friend that different people like different proportions of beer and ginger beer, or whatever it is in their shandy-gaff, and I am willing to accept my noble friend's Amendment. I should be grateful if he would withdraw it and allow us to draft an alternative one, because there are also people who like a shandy-gaff which is made not with beer and some other sort of drink but with cider and some soft drink. I think that we ought to make sure that that is not caught by the provisions of the Ninth Schedule relating to composite goods.

LORD HAWKE

I thank my noble friend very much—

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

May I ask what is going to be done to make sure that people ordering these mixed drinks get their right measurements?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

Nothing. The point is that they like different measurements. Some may like 10 per cent. of beer and 90 per cent. of ginger beer; others may like some different quantities.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

There will be a much greater consideration to the beer trade than to the milk trade.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I do not think you ever have milk in shandy-gaff, do you?

LORD HAWKE

There would be nothing, so far as I can see, to prevent a customer asking specially for half a pint of beer with a lemonade, or a quarter of a pint of beer with a lemonade; and presumably the publican would provide him with that. I am most grateful to my noble friend. To have two Amendments accepted in one day is rather a record. I shall try, though with considerable anxiety, the particular drink which he suggests exists. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.27 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON moved, in paragraph 3, to leave out "gin, rum and whisky" and insert "wines, sweets and spirits". The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is again to help the Government to come into line with the Hodgson Report. I should be the first to admit that my Amendment is a rather wide one, because it would have the effect of bringing in all wines in cork, which by definition means imported wines, all spirits and sweets, which might include home-made wine—some of your Lordships may be in the habit of producing, but possibly not selling, home-made wine. The Hodgson Report is pretty definite on this matter. They say: We agree with this "— that is an opinion expressed previously— and are of the opinion that the possibilities of deception and malpractice inherent in the present system fully justify a recommendation that all draught sales in Great Britain of wines and spirits, with the exception of sparkling wines, liqueurs and cocktails, should be by lawful imperial measure only. I do not propose to press this Amendment to a Division, but I do not know why the Government have excluded wines and spirits.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

Not spirits.

LORD SHACKLETON

In this particular effect the Bill is limited to gin, rum and whisky. I do not know why it omits wines and other spirits, of which there are many kinds and which I think ought to be sold by an established measure. The particular examples I have in mind are port wine, sherry, and certainly some of the wine that is sold in increasing quantities in wine bars and other places. It is quite common practice in a public-house and some wine shops to buy wine by the glass. If this in fact goes too far it may be that the Government could give an indication of an Amendment that would broadly conform with the Hodgson recommendation. I hope the Government will say something about this. I would remind the noble Earl that in the same way as in regard to meat he rather limited the descriptions of meat. I think there are many liqueurs (no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, would be able to suggest many additional liqueurs of strange variety from different parts of the world) which ought in fact to be sold by an established measure. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 65, line 11, leave out from ("say") to ("shall") and insert ("wines, sweets and spirits").—(Lord Shackleton..)

LORD SHEPHERD

I rise to support my noble friend. I believe there is an increased consumption of wines, particularly sherry and madeira, in the city of London to-day and that that is becoming a more popular drink as against gin, whisky and brandy. But I also believe that under this Amendment something can be done in regard to the measure of wines which are now being served at the table. There is an increasing interest in wines sold at the table, particularly where people buy not by the bottle but by the carafe. I notice that from one restaurant to another there is a different sized carafe put on the table. Wine is not all that cheap, and if the Amendment were accepted bringing wine into the Bill it would be possible to buy wine at a table in measure and know that one is getting value for one's money.

LORD HAWKE

I believe that in the present state of affairs this is an impracticable Amendment. We should all like to make certain that we got good measure when we asked for a glass of wine of various kinds, but until the glasses in the country are of standard size and properly measured, I am afraid it would really be quite impracticable to do this. I gather that even the carafe varies, although one would presume that that would be a measure one could expect to be more of standard size than any other. Apart from that, although one may perhaps feel one has sometimes been cheated by being given rather a small glass, there are far more opportunities of being cheated by being given the wrong stuff, one being quite indistinguishable from another. The amount of South African sherry which is served by the glass as Spanish and which is completely indistinguishable to the normal person is great; and the South African wine is much cheaper. The same thing applies to Spanish red wines—

LORD SHEPHERD

And champagne.

LORD HAWKE

—which are also a great deal cheaper than French; and to many people they are virtually indistinguishable from French. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not see fit to accept this Amendment at this moment.

LORD CROOK

I had no intention of speaking until I listened to the noble Lord apparently suggesting that the only way one can ever have a glass of claret of the right measure is by having glasses of a certain size. Has the noble Lord never taken wine by the glass in a country like Switzerland? There, many people buy wine by the glass or the carafe, but one knows that the measure is correct by the line that is drawn on the carafe or glass, whatever its shape or size, and knows that one has been given the measure for which one is paying. It is absurd to suggest that we must have a standard size of glass before this can be done.

LORD HAWKE

It means changing all the glasses in the country first. That is my point.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

To fulfil the requirements of this Amendment liquor will have to be measured not by the carafe but either in a measuring cup or an "optic"-type of measuring instrument before pouring it into the glass from which it is to be drunk, or else served in a glass which has a line measure marked on it; and all those items would have to be tested and stamped by an inspector. I think there are probably other spirits besides gin, rum and whisky which it might be a good thing to bring under this Bill but we must remember that this is not concerned with quantity but with quality—I am sorry, I mean it is not concerned with quality but only with quantity. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who is probably a far better judge than I am—for I am a very poor judge of wine indeed, and he is probably a much better one—would doubtless agree that the quality and bouquet of many types of vintage wine would be spoiled if they had to be served through a measuring instrument. They are often provided, to the satisfaction of the consumer, in nice-looking glasses which it would be rather a crime to stamp with a line measure in order to have them inspected by an inspector. The same considerations, I think, apply to a number of liqueur spirits which we may have to consider on a subsequent Amendment which the noble Lord is to move. I believe that in many of these cases the consumer is more concerned with the quality of the product than with the precise ascertainment of its quantity. But the Government will certainly consider it justifiable later on to add further liquors, after we have had some experience under this Bill, to those to which the provisions of this Part are to apply. That will be possible by order. I think we had better begin with whisky, rum and gin; and I think it would be quite a mistake to put it too wide to begin with.

LORD STONHAM

Before the noble Earl sits down can he say why this difficulty should apply to all these other liquors while it does not apply to whisky, rum and gin? He speaks of this difficulty in measuring these others out by the means prescribed in the Bill; but surely the difficulty exists with regard to the three liquors specified. It is all very well for the noble Earl to shake his head. There are many other liquors which are not mentioned here. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has a later Amendment mentioning two of them. Everybody could think of his particular "tipple" and put it down. But we in this Amendment have made it all-embracing. The noble Earl put his finger on the matter when he said that under the Bill it is the quantity that counts, not the quality. But if he feels that it may be necessary to include other liquors later on, by regulation, why not make the definition wide enough now to admit them?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I carelessly transposed the words "quantity" and "quality" in the first sentence of my reply, and I think the noble Lord has clone the same. My objection to accepting the Amendment is that there are a great many kinds of drink in which people think more of quality than of quantity. As he has mentioned it—I do not know whether I shall save time by anticipating the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Hawke—I should have thought that liqueur brandy, which is mentioned in the Amendment, was eminently the kind of drink on which most people thought a great deal more of quality than of quantity. I shall not say anything about vodka at the moment.

LORD CROOK

As one who cares a little about brandy, surely the noble Earl is aware that some of the best glasses used in the best restaurants in town have small marks now—to make sure that the head waiter does not give one too much.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

The glass I like drinking brandy out of is a thing that holds about three pints. But one puts only a little drop into it so that one can get the bouquet. If we now made it a law that brandy must always be sold by quantity, we might do more harm than good. I think we had better start with the three we have mentioned. of which we are sure.

LORD CROOK

May I ask the noble Earl to bring one of his three-pint glasses into the House for exhibition?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

He may ask me to bring it in, but not to fill it.

LORD SHEPHERD

When the noble Earl was talking about carafes and quality and quantity, he must surely have known that in most cases when wines are ordered by carafe the quality is not one of vintage 1956 1957 or 1958. The customer orders the wine, white, rosé or ruby. He orders a carafe of wine. The noble Earl must know as well as I do that there are to-day varying sizes, and usually they are supplied at much the same price. I think the noble Earl could meet as if only he would go back to his colleagues and think about this matter. I am quite sure we could find the words sc that we could bring in not only wine but the other items of which my noble friend Lord Shackleton has spoken.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

We can consider bringing in later on other kinds of drinks by Order. We certainly mean to do so.

LORD SHACKLETON

We are, of course, quite out of order in discussing the quality, much as I should like to do so. It has nothing to do with the Bill at all, and we must, unfortunately, confine ourselves to quantity. I agree with the noble Lord that this is a matter which we could spend many happy hours discussing, but let us get back to the simple point I made: that there are certain liquors which are outside the Bill and which ought to be brought within it. It is arguable whether all liqueurs ought to come in. I am doubtful whether anybody ought to measure crème de menthe, for example. People who drink such stuff should pay the penalty, especially when it is frothy.

But I do not think it is quite good enough to say that we can do it by Order later. I know that the Government cannot get everything into this Bill, but they really might have listened to the representations, apparently, of the trade—strong recommendations from all sections of the, trade. The sale of draught wines and spirits should he by lawful measure only. I do not know whether the noble Earl is saying that on this matter the Hodgson Committee was misinformed. I am rather afraid that the Government have not, perhaps, done their homework on this subject, unless they are going to proceed to do much more governing by Order than I think they like to do. I agree that this Amendment, as drafted, is not satisfactory—I made that clear at the beginning. But perhaps the Government might think about it and see whether, instead of waiting for Orders at a later date, they might not get some of it right on Report stage. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.42 p.m.

LORD HAWKE moved, in paragraph 3 of Part VI after "gin", where that word first occurs, to insert "brandy, vodka," The noble Lord said: In running through this Bill for seeming anomalies, I came across this clause and wondered why gin, whisky and rum were the only spirits included in the liquors that had to be measured. Now vodka is a liquor the sales of which are increasing. It is coming into fashion and is gaining popularity in this country. It is heavily advertised; and, moreover, it is advertised as a drink suitable to be drunk with others. Now your Lordships are well aware that when a mixture of liquor, not being a mixture of three different sorts but a mixture of two different sorts, is ordered, it is sometimes difficult, when one of the components is a colourless thing, like gin, for instance, to make certain that you are getting the right quantity of gin. In fact, there is many a gin and vermouth which contains remarkably little gin; and precisely the same thing is going to happen with vodka if and when it becomes more popular, as I expect it is going to do. I therefore hope that vodka can be included here. I am told that the retail trade have no objection to that. Incidentally, I may add that I am informed that they have violent objections to the idea of the last Amendment, that all wines and spirits should be measured. Then we come to brandy.

LORD SHACKLETON

Would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? This is the second time he has gone out of order on this Bill. We have already dealt with the last Amendment. I do not think he should now return to wines and spirits.

LORD HAWKE

I am not always in order, and I stand rebuked. I hope the noble Lord will never be out of order himself. When we come to liqueur brandy, it occurred to me that, as a taxpayer, I believe I pay for at least 55 per cent. of the cost of three-quarters of the liqueur brandies drunk in this country every day, and I should like to see that my beneficiaries receive good measure. There, again, I am told that the retail trade would have no objection. I should not wish to add any of the other types of spirits and liqueurs, because they are drunk in very different circumstances and in rather smaller quantities; but I think there is a case for vodka, and possibly for brandy, to be included. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 65, line 11, after ("gin") insert ("brandy, vodka,").—(Lord Hawke..)

9.46 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I entirely agree with my noble friend that, when you have a colourless liquid like gin or vodka, it is difficult to be sure that you are getting the right amount. I remember when I was Secretary of the Union Society at Oxford and Hilaire Belloc came to a debate. I was in charge of the glasses and jugs, and I filled the water jug at the despatch box up to the top with two bottles of gin. He never realised what it was and poured himself out a glass, and he made a very good speech.

With regard to brandy, I have already mentioned, on the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that it would be very difficult to distinguish legally between liqueur brandy and other kinds of brandy which one might want to be measured. I think that in the case of liqueur brandy it would be a mistake to require that it should be put through a measure. With regard to vodka, I dare say there may be a case. My noble friend evidently knows more about its consumption in this country than I do. I should not have thought that its consumption in this country was yet wide enough to justify its inclusion in this Bill, and I say again that I think it is better to begin with the spirits which are most widely consumed. But it could certainly be included in an Order later on if the fashion develops.

LORD LATHAM

I have no knowledge of the consumption of vodka in this country, but I understand from reliable authority that there is at the present time more vodka than gin consumed in the United States.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

Yes.

LORD HAWKE

If my noble friend has a look at the figures and the trend, I believe he will see that vodka consumption in this country looks like increasing very rapidly. If he can examine the position with a view to including vodka, I would perhaps agree that the brandy position is difficult and I would cheerfully drop brandy. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.49 p.m.

LORD LATHAM moved in paragraph 3 (a) to leave out "one of the following quantities, that is to say". The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Silkin, I rise to move Amendment No. 120 standing in his name and the name of my noble friend Lord Shackleton and myself. We have now passed from Part V of the Bill, which deals with milk, to Part VI, which deals with intoxicating liquor, without, shall I say, any excessively happy hilarity. Amendment No. 120, coupled with Amendments 120A and 121A are all related to an effort to remove the confusion which will exist as the result of having three fractions of a gill as the proper and approved measures in respect of certain drinks. Amendment No. 121AB is consequential.

The clause as drafted provides that when gin, rum and whisky are sold for retail consumption on the premises, it should be optional to sell it in quantities based on three fractions of the gill—namely, one-quarter, one-fifth and one-sixth. It is also provided that each of the specified liquors may be sold in different quantities on the same premises at the option of the proprietor. To take an extreme example, gin may be sold on the basis of one-quarter of a gill, rum on the basis of one-fifth, and whisky on the basis of one-sixth of a gill, all on the same premises. It is difficult to find justification for permitting three quantity bases for the sale of liquor. In the view of those concerned the basic measure should be the same throughout Great Britain.

Apart from the desirability of uniformity, the variation of the three measures from the mean is so small as not to warrant the difference in practice. Further, it is likely to give rise to confusion, so far as the purchasers are concerned. The equivalent of the three measures in terms of fluid ounces are as follows: one quarter of a gill is equal to 1.25 fluid oz.; one-fifth to 1 fluid oz., and one-sixth to 83 fluid oz. One needs to conduct an exercise in mathematics as well as get a drink.

It is understood that part of the reason for including the three measures in the prescription is that one quarter of a gill is used in Scotland (I recall a learned discourse of the noble Earl on measures of whisky in Scotland, based, no doubt, on solid experience and abundant knowledge); one-fifth of a gill in the North of England and one-sixth in the South of England. The view is taken that, in the interests of uniformity, one-fifth of a gill would be a fair compromise between the two extremes and one which is likely to be acceptable to Scotland, where up to now, I understand, there has been strong support for a quarter of a gill. I am informed that the purpose of these Amendments is supported by the Association of County Councils in Scotland, who probably will be the authorities for weights and measures, In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Earl, on behalf of the Government, may find himself able to accept this mean and settle for one-fifth of a gill, thus ensuring uniformity. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 65, line 14, leave out from first ("of") to ("one-fifth") in line 15.—(Lord Latham.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

This is the first of a series of Amendments designed to secure uniformity in the measure of drink, in which the Bill allows diversity. I am afraid that I cannot agree that the difference between one-fourth, one-fifth and one-sixth of a gill is negligible. It really is not. Whatever the Association of County Councils in Scotland may say, I do not think that the diminution of the accepted measure from one-quarter to one-fifth of a gill would be acceptable there at all. Of course, the fact that there are different measures in different parts of the country is not the fault of Parliament or of the Government, or of anybody. It is simply due to the development of local customs within the last 60 years. Up to the end of last century, the Scottish measure was almost universal over Great Britain, but within the last 60 years these variations have become established by custom. The measures, however, are not invariable. I do not know that in every place where liquor is sold in Scotland they give a quarter of a gill. There are exceptions in the North of England, and there are exceptions even in London to the smallest measure of one-sixth of a gill. The quantity is not uniform, but it is just generally the custom.

LORD LATHAM

Should we then not make it uniform?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

What I am saying is not that it is not uniform throughout the whole Kingdom but it is not even uniform in the various areas. In the South of England the one-sixth is not uniform. You have public-houses in the South of England—I could tell the noble Lord of one, though it has Scottish connections—where the measure is one-quarter of a gill. It is not uniform in the North of England or in Scotland. It is merely predominantly so in these three areas. Although we might think it tidier and more convenient to have a uniform measure for the whole of the United Kingdom, I think we have to take account of these customs which have grown up in the last 50 years all over Scotland and England.

It is left to the proprietor of premises in which liquor is sold to decide (and no doubt in making his decision he will take account of his customers' tastes) whether he will give one-quarter, one-fifth or one-sixth of a gill as the standard measure. Naturally, I should much prefer that the Scottish measure should prevail and that it should he uniform. But there is some difference in price—although this Bill has nothing to do with prices—between the smaller measure and the larger measure.

I think the first step we want to take in this Bill is not to make the thing uniform, but to provide that the people in the South of England and elsewhere get full measure, even though it be the smallest measure, to which they are entitled and which they are not getting now. That is the main purpose of this Bill: not the establishment of uniformity, but to ensure that people get what they are entitled to. One-sixth of a gill, which is the usual quantity in London, may be a very small measure; but if a man goes to the bar of a London theatre between the acts to get some quick refreshment he may be perfectly satisfied with one-sixth of a gill, if he can get it. But he does not get it; he gets about one-twentieth of a gill. The first thing we want to do in this Bill is to provide that he gets one-sixth.

What happens after that? When it becomes known that the three different measures are all legal, I think it is up to the customers to decide and to bring pressure to bear upon the places where they go to have their refreshment. They may not all want the full measure of one-quarter of a gill which you have in Scotland. Some may prefer the smaller measure of London, provided that they do not have to pay the Scottish price for it. If they want a smaller measure, then they can settle on that basis. If they want a larger measure, then no doubt they will let it be known to the proprietor that if he does not give them the measure they want they will go elsewhere.

The difference which the Bill makes is that the proprietor of premises in which liquor is sold will have to put up a notice saying, "In this bar (or restaurant, or public-house, or whatever it may be), the standard measure is one-quarter, or one-fifth or one-sixth of a gill", so that the people know what they are entitled to get. If they do not think it is a good enough measure, they can bring pressure to bear upon their suppliers to give them what they want. But at least they will know what they are entitled to. I think it is far more important to see that they do get even this small measure that they are entitled to get in London, than to see that a standard measure is uniform over the whole country. I think that is what we should begin with. After all, we must not take it for granted that a smaller measure will prevail all over the South of England—it may not. Nor should we take it for granted that the larger measure will prevail in Scotland. It is a pity, perhaps, from the point of view of uniformity, that these different practices should have grown up, but there they are. What we are doing now is to make sure that when a measure is adopted as a common standard in a certain area, full measure shall be given and not short measure.

10.2 p.m.

LORD LATHAM

I must say I am very touched by the solicitude of the noble Earl for the South of England.

But what you are proposing to do is not to legalise measures or quantities, but legalise confusion and open three fields of irregularity and abuse. It may well be that these different measures have grown up by custom and tradition, but now the situation is different. The Government have quite wisely decided to legalise certain measures and certain quantities. If that be the case, the Government are entitled to expect that what was accepted traditionally but was not necessarily legal, if it is to become legal must cease to be traditional. It seems to me a perfect exercise, in company with all progressive legislation designed to protect the citizen against influences which are not always honest. But it really is Gilbertian that in one and the same premises you should have three different measures. It is true it may be three different spirits, although sometimes the difference is not excessively noticeable. But they are three different spirits, and there are three different measures, all solemnly written up on notices for the hurried drinker to read, if he has time, especially in the bar of a theatre between the acts.

I should have thought that the Government would welcome an opportunity such as this for inducing uniformity, and for stating that this is the measure which must be given and that it is a requirement which must be complied with. I am very disappointed that the noble Earl is not more sympathetic to what appears to me to he, and, I think, would appear to the general public, a perfectly reasonable proposition.

LORD CROOK

May I intervene for a moment, because I see a good deal of the argument which the noble Earl advances. Like my noble friend in front of me, I am most anxious to see that we should get a better deal in many of the pubs and clubs than we have had in the past. But I do see that by coming down to three measures instead of twelve we are making a big advance. One of the things I have not heard said so far is that spirits are sold in pubs in London in twelve different measures. They are sold in optics which will give 20 out of a bottle, all the way up to 32. Certain pubs in certain working-class areas, where people make themselves felt if they do not get the service they want, have put up a notice saying how many are taken out of a bottle.

If my noble friend is front of me is not going to get the Amendment he wants, there is a second part: the publication of the notice to which the noble Earl referred. I do not believe that putting up a notice saying "one quarter", "one-fifth" or "one-sixth" of a gill is going to mean much to the ordinary working man who buys a drink. I think that if some of the language already used in the bar could be incorporated into that notice, making it clear that one quarter, one fifth or one sixth means 20, 24, or 32 out of a bottle—language they are used to—then you might be getting somewhere. Much as I should like to support my noble friend in his Amendment, I do not think the differences are geographical at all. I have drunk whisky in each of the three parts of the country and I think the differences are independent. The thing we are discussing is not price, but the man who gets 20 out of a bottle is obviously going to charge more than the man who gets 32. If the noble Earl could give us some understanding of the notice that is going up I should be grateful.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crook, for what he has said. I think there is a great deal of sense in it. I appreciate Lord Latham's desire that everybody should get a fuller measure, and I very much sympathise. I think what we are doing is not to create three fields of confusion but create three fields in which people may get what they are entitled to get, which they are not always getting now. That may lead to greater uniformity later on.

With regard to three measures in one pub, it does not mean three alternative measures of one drink. They might have three alternative measures of three drinks. They might have a quarter of a gill for whisky, one-fifth for rum and one-sixth for gin. I do not think that is necessarily bad or confusing. The proprietor of the pub might want to give a full measure of whisky for his customers in the bar, and through the other window in the cocktail bar he might find some young ladies who might prefer one-sixth of a gill in a gin cocktail. I do not think we should prevent different measures for different liquors.

LORD STONHAM

Do I understand that it will be permissible to have in a pub only one measure for whisky, whether it is a quarter or a fifth or a sixth—that you cannot have a quarter and a fifth and a sixth?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I think the noble Lord, Lard Stonham, is right about that. The Bill is denying to the same man in the same premises the right to sell three different measures of one drink to three different classes of customer.

LORD STONHAM

In that case the Schedule is a lot better than I thought it was. I did not realise that it was so confined. I think the only comment I can make is that it would have been better to leave it at a quarter of a gill.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

Not "leave it", but make it.

LORD STONHAM

Because there is a conflict in these Amendments. At least it would have removed the last reason for Scots who have come to England returning to Scotland. They would not find any great advantage. But after that explanation it seems that the Schedule is much better than I thought.

LORD LATHAM

I should like to get this clear. Is it the case that you can use varied measures by reference to persons and not by reference to the drink?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

In the same premises you cannot have three measures of the same drink, but you can have one for whisky, one for gin and one for rum.

LORD LATHAM

Would the noble Earl be content to look into the matter?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

Certainly.

LORD LATHAM

On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.10 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

I can be very brief here. Paragraph 4 says: intoxicating liquor of any description shall be pre-packed in a closed container. According to the definition in paragraph 3, intoxicating liquor is "gin, rum and whisky." I seek to include in paragraph 4 sweets, which I understand are a concoction of fruit and sugar mixed with any other material which has been fermented. This, I believe, is a considerable source of business in intoxicating drinks, and I think it should be included in this clause. That would mean that this type of alcohol, if it is pre-packed, would have to be marked with an indication of quantity by capacity measurement. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 65, line 32, after ("description") insert ("and sweets").—(Lord Shepherd.)

LORD HAWKE

Could the noble Lord tell us a little more about "and sweets", because he has given such a meagre example that it is difficult to visualise what he is talking about?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

Perhaps I could help both my noble friend behind me and the noble Lord opposite by quoting from the Customs and Excise Act, 1952. "Sweets" is defined—it is not perhaps what my noble friend may think it means—as: any liquor which is made from fruit and sugar or from fruit or sugar mixed with any other material and which has undergone a process of fermentation in the manufacture thereof, and includes British wines, made wines, mead and metheglin". The one common factor among all those things is that they must have undergone a process of fermentation. They are, therefore, intoxicating. People like to drink this sort of stuff. I am all in favour of their having their full measure. They are exempted only because it is consequential upon the exemption given to wines.

The Government do not think that it would be reasonable to require wine bottles to be marked, because of the difficulty with vintage wines, which can diminish quite a lot in quantity during the period they are laid down, owing to "crusting" and the deposit of sediment; and it would be most undesirable to require a matured wine to be put through a measuring instrument just before it was placed on the market. Further, it would hardly be practicable to differentiate in the law as between vintage and non-vintage wines; I do not think that could reasonably be done. Accordingly, all imported wines have been exempted. I think that is reasonable. In view of this, it would hardly be fair to impose a marking requirement upon the home-produced wines, some of which may be of good class, but most of which come under the definition of "sweets". No problems would arise from the paint of view of vintage and long periods of laying down; but many varieties of imported wine compete for exactly the same market as the home-produced wines, and therefore the Government do not think it would be fair to discriminate against the latter, as would have to be done if we accepted this Amendment about so-called sweets.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

I may have read this paragraph with the eye of innocence, but it seemed to me that its object was to ensure that when you bought a bottle of wine you knew haw much there was in it. To my mind, intoxicating liquor is not only spirits. I understand that wines and spirits are intoxicating liquor. Although it is not something that could be implemented quickly, and would have to be done over a period of years, surely it would be a simple measure to ensure a uniform size of bottles of wines and spirits. Does the noble Earl say there is no intention of that kind in this part of the Bill?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

The noble Earl is quite right in saying that whisky, gin and rum are not the only kinds of intoxicating liquor in the world, but they are the only kind of intoxicating liquor brought under this Bill at present. All wines, whether vintage or sweet, or others, are excluded, as are all other kinds of spirits. But, as the noble Earl says, if we find that it is appropriate to bring other kinds of drink under the Bill that can be done over a period by order under Clause 22.

LORD SHEPHERD

I listened very carefully to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and I think we are rather getting back to where we were a few minutes ago on the question of quality and quantity. Had the noble Earl rested his case only on his first few words I should have been happy to withdraw my Amendment. On reflection, I am going to do so, and perhaps we could deploy our case on the question of quality and quantity when we move to Amendment No. 123, which is in the name of my noble friend Lord Shackleton.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD STONHAM moved, in paragraph 4, immediately before the proviso, to insert: in a quantity corresponding to an imperial measure included in paragraph I of Part IV of the Third Schedule to this Act". The noble Lord said: Paragraph 4 of Part VI reads: Intoxicating liquor of any description shall be pre-packed in a closed container only if the container is marked with an indication of quantity by capacity measurement:

For enlightenment on what "capacity measurement" meant I looked at the Interpretation Clause, Clause 59. There I read: 'capacity measurement' means measurement in terms of measurement of capacity; I assure the noble Earl I have read the words correctly. If he will look at Clause 59, page 46, he will see exactly those words. That does not offer me any enlightenment, and therefore, to get some enlightenment, we are proposing to add the words on the marshalled list. In the absence of enlightenment from the Interpretation Clause, as paragraph 4 of this Part now stands, the container has only to be marked with art indication of its capacity measurement. We have had in the debates on these Amendments some idea of the varying capacities of noble Lords and glasses, but this paragraph, as it stands, could mean anything or nothing. I believe that it means nothing, because some firms market their liquors in bottles marked as "one-glass size", or "two-glass size." One firm marks its product with the slogan "It just fills a champagne glass". But so far as capacities as we understand them are concerned, particularly just after we have been talking about one quarter, one-fifth, or one-sixth of a gill, capacity itself can mean just one or two glasses—and it is the seller who decides how big is the glass. Surely it must be something we can all recognise.

There are all kinds of things which would satisfy the requirement of capacity. For example, a firm might say the measure was "one-swallow size" or "two-swallow size", a "toothful" or a "mouthful". They are all indications of capacity and presumably would all satisfy this description, that the liquor: shall be pre-packed in a closed container only if the container is marked with an indication of quantity by capacity measurement: Such descriptions as "one-glass" "two-glass", "one toothful" or "one mouthful" would all satisfy that particular provision. We ask the Government to accept this Amendment so that bottles are marked with one of the very wide range of capacity measurements listed in the first paragraph of Part IV of the First Schedule. The noble Earl may very rightly say that since this paragraph refers to intoxicating liquor of any description, there would be a difficulty about wines, which are, of course, imported and are not usually bottled in our own imperial measurements. If that is regarded as an objection to the Amendment (if the noble Earl has one), one could then include also paragraph 5 of Part IV of the Third Schedule which gives the metric measurement. I think that this is a valid point. It is no good pretending that under the Bill manufacturers or bottlers are to be asked to make a glass container for intoxicating liquors with an indication of capacity when the Bill gives not the slightest indication of the capacity. That is no earthly use to the buyer. Therefore, we would ask that the Amendment be accepted, if not in precisely these words, at least in principle, so that these closed containers, whether bottles or cans or anything else, are marked with an indication of capacity in terms that the buyer will recognise. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 65, line 34, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Stonham..)

LORD HAWKE

Is it wise to include only imperial measurement, because there may be imports of liquor? So far as I can make out it is only whisky, gin and rum which are concerned. Gin and rum are made outside the British or sterling area and might easily come in litres.

LORD STONHAM

Perhaps the noble Lord did not hear me. I said that. Paragraph 4 refers to "intoxicating liquor of any description." That, I said, would include wines and other spirits. We could include paragraph 5 of Part IV of the Third Schedule, which would include the Continental measures.

10.22 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

This paragraph deals with "intoxicating liquor of any description" that" shall be pre-packed in a closed container only if the container is marked with an indication of quantity by capacity measurement."

But it says that there shall be exempted from the requirements of this paragraph:

1. "(a) wine and sweets;
2. (b) any other liquor in a quantity of less than five fluid ounces. …"

The effect of the Amendment would be to require all intoxicating liquors other than wine to be pre-packed only in a limited range of quantities, corresponding to those of the lawful imperial measures which are listed in the Third Schedule.

The definition which is given of "capacity measurement" on page 46 is a rather technical one. It is designed to relate this shorthand term which is used throughout the Bill in relation to marking liquid goods when pre-packed to Part IV of the First Schedule, which gives these units their full and correct definition as units of measurement of capacity. Of course the Bill does not require, as the Amendment does, that they shall be in closely defined multiples of imperial measures: that is to say, half a pint, one pint and one quart. It would be legal to have all kinds of fractions of a pint. In this country spirits are traditionally bottled in quantities of two-thirds of a pint for the small bottle and 1⅓ pints for the large bottle. The noble Lord's Amendment would put an end to this. It would require a completely new range of bottle sizes to be adopted for the sale of spirits, a range that would be different, for example, from that in which whisky is now exported to North America. The Hodgson Committee recommended that two-thirds of a pint and one and one-third of a pint measures should be made lawful, so that the sales of spirits and wines could be standardised at these quantities. I hope the noble Lord will not seek to press an Amendment which will require the sizes of all the bottles which are now being made in this country to be radically changed.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

I do not know why the noble Earl thinks that there is anything in the Amendment to say that they must be in given quantities. All it says is that the capacities must be marked.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

The Bill says that capacities must be marked, but the noble Lord's Amendment says that they must be marked in a quantity corresponding to an imperial measure included in paragraph 1 of Part IV of the Third Schedule to this Act.

LORD CROOK

May I point out to the noble Earl that there is complete confusion here, in many ways? It does not mean the marking on the bottle, as I suggest to the noble Earl he is saying; nor does it mean that bottles of new sizes have to be made. In his own country of Scotland, proprietary whiskies are at this moment bottled in quantities of four-fifths of a quart and one quart, and they are respectively marked four-fifths of a quart and one quart, for export all over the world. I have seen them in America within the last three weeks: two bottles, side by side, looking exactly the same except for height, marked four-fifths of a quart and one quart. There is no difficulty about making the bottles and there is no difficulty about marking them. The only difficulty seems to me to be, if I may say so, in dealing with exactly what is in the Amendment. However, I should like to go on and take up the point made by my noble friend Lord Stonham. We must not forgot cans.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

How big?

LORD CROOK

Cans as containers for beer, which come into the point which my noble friend Lord Stonham made. I am not going to mention their names, but there are in this country firms who normally sell reputed pints and reputed half-pints but who are now selling two sizes of cans which workmen may well talk of as half-pints and pints—though in fact they are nothing of the sort. They are, as my noble friend said, one-glass and two-glass containers. I invite the noble Earl to come with me—I will pay—to have a small and a large can, and a half-pint and a pint of beer. I will pour them out in glasses in front of him. He may select which he drinks, but I know which one he will take.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

Then what I told the noble Lord is right: there is no difference in the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment and what is in the Bill.

LORD GIFFORD

May I say that one firm is marketing half a yard of beer for Christmas?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I should like to accept the noble Lord's invitation with grateful thanks.

LORD STONHAM

Before the noble Earl gets carried away by my noble friend's invitation, would he just make this point quite clear to me?—because I am afraid that it is not. I would not accept, and I do not propose, that any Amendment of this kind would mean a wholesale change in the trade of glass bottles, and that kind of thing. But it is certainly not clear to me that under the Bill as it stands an understandable measure of capacity will have to be marked on a solid container of intoxicating liquor—and by the marking of a capacity which the ordinary person would understand I mean that it must be a pint, half a pint, four-fifths or something like that; not what somebody calls arbitrarily one glassful, one "toothful", one "skinful". Those things are not standard, because various people's capacities are different. If the noble Earl could give me an assurance on that point, that there will be recognisable marks stamped on the containers, then I shall be satisfied and will withdraw my Amendment.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I will certainly look into the question of glassfuls, "toothfuls" and "skinfuls", and see whether they can be eliminated.

LORD AIREDALE

I do not believe that glassfuls, and so on, are measures of capacity at all.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I said that I do not think they are, but I have promised to look into it and make sure they will not be regarded as such.

LORD AIREDALE

Well, may I say that I do not think they are either. A glassful may be an indication of the capacity, but it is not a measure of the capacity, and as such would not satisfy paragraph 4.

LORD STONHAM

I understand that the noble Earl is going to look into it, and agrees with me that a glassful is not a measure of capacity. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.33 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD moved, in paragraph 4, to omit proviso (a). The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, Lord Shackleton, I wish to move this Amendment. Paragraph 4 deals with pre-packed intoxicating liquor of any description, and the Government by the Bill, are excluding from the requirement to indicate capacity "wine and sweets". The Hodgson Committee received very strong recommendations from the retail section of the trade, and also from various public bodies, to the effect that all bottles of alcoholic liquor sold in Great Britain should bear an indication of the minimum net content so that the giving of short measure would become an offence. Wine is an increasing attraction to our people, and at present it is being sold in bottles of various shapes and sizes. The noble Earl, when resisting a previous Amendment, brought up the subject of quality and quantity. He said that the public were more concerned with quality than quantity. The noble Earl may be quite correct when dealing with the West End of London. He may be quite correct when dealing with the connoisseurs of wines. But the broad masses of the people who may be taking to wine and drinking it today probably have difficulty in telling the difference between a 1957 and a 1956, a 1959 or even a 1960 wine. What they are interested in is the quantity they purchase. We believe that, just as on the Continent, the wine bottle should clearly state the amount that the purchaser is obtaining for his money.

I cannot see any difficulty in this matter at all. I understand that, apart from the smaller quantity of vintage wines purchased in this country, either over the table or from off-licensed premises, most of the wine that is consumed is brought over in bulk and is put into bottles here. If that is the case, then what is the difficulty? If we are to require meat, fish and other items to be sold by net weight, why cannot we have on our bottles the quantity of the wine or the sweets or liquor that is being offered for sale over the counter or over the table? I just cannot understand it. I hone that the noble Earl will not bring in this (if I may use the phrase) red herring, that it is a question of quality and not quantity. What we are interested in is that the consumer, when he makes a purchase, can, if he wishes, check what is the quantity he is purchasing with his money. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 65, line 37, leave out line 37.—(Lord Shepherd.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

In this part of the Schedule, the Bill requires that all intoxicating liquors shall be marked with their quantity, but it exempts wines. That is not because the Government think that wine drinkers ought to be defrauded. On the contrary, our sympathies lie very much in the direction of requiring the marking of wine bottles, and it was only after careful consideration that we concluded that it was not practicable. A vintage wine—and I assure the noble Lord that I can never tell the year of a vintage wine—may be laid down for many years and in this period its quantity may be affected by evaporation, by the "crusting" of the wine and the depositing of sediment. Also, vintage wines are sometimes rebottled at one or more periods in their life, when further losses can occur. But it would be detrimental to their quality to require them to be passed through a measure at a late stage of their life in order to determine their quantity for the purposes of labelling the bottle. It is, of course, the custom of the trade to bottle many varieties of wines in standard-sized bottles, so that the consumer who has come to know these sizes already has a form of protection; but a distinction between classes of wine in relation to the requirement to mark the bottle might put the trade in a good deal of doubt as to where they stood and, moreover, would be extremely difficult to enforce.

LORD CROOK

I accept that it may not be necessary in respect of vintage wine. With chateau-bottled wine in France, for example, you have to accept the bottle used in the chateau. But that is a limited amount of the wine that comes into this country. I would refer to what my noble friend Lord Shepherd said about bottling in this country. The plain truth is that the great growth in the drinking of wine in this country since the war has turned upon the change over from bringing it in in bottles to bringing it in in bulk and bottling it over here. If it were true that there is a standard size of wine bottle and everybody knew what he was buying, that would be all right. There is a firm which advertises in The Times every Saturday, and in the Sunday Times most Sundays, making the point that, unlike other wine bottlers, they bottle by the litre and not in the small bottles that the others are getting away with. I happened to buy one bottle from that firm and I know the difference in the two sizes of bottle. If the noble Earl is really going on the Christmas expedition with me, which we have half promised ourselves, we may look at the two different sizes of bottle as well.

I would ask the noble Earl to bear in mind that there is a real point here. I do not say that the noble Earl has not made a good case in respect of vintage wines, but, equally, I think that he has not done justice to the case of my noble friend. I hope he will be prepared to look at the case of wine bottled in this country and at the size of bottles used by the bottling firms. If he wishes, I can give him not only copies of the advertisements to which I have referred but two of the bottles as well.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I shall be glad to look into the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Crook, has used, and to look at anything else, if he cares to supply it.

LORD SHEPHERD

I shall be happy to withdraw this Amendment on the condition that the noble Earl will look into it. I do not think that there is much difficulty about identifying vintage wines. They have their dates clearly stamped on the labels and if they have special treatment, it is because they are vintage wines. Most of the trade is bringing wine over in barrels and putting it into bottles in this country. There are abuses going on at present. I think that, if the Government are genuine in their desire to bring some justice to the consumer in this Bill, they should take hold of this and give the consumer some protection.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.40 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

In paragraph 4 (b) a further exemption is made. It says: any other liquor in a quantity of less than five fluid ounces or more than half a gallon". It is felt in some quarters that an exemption of five fluid ounces is rather high. The exemption in the Bill would include many of the small bottles of spirits which are popular, and are usually called "miniatures". It includes well-known brands of whisky, brandy, gin and other liquors, and they have quite a high retail value, in some cases as much as 10s. It is felt that to give an exemption of five fluid ounces for such intoxicating liquor is too high. By this Amendment I hope to reduce the exemption from five fluid ounces to two fluid ounces. I beg to move.

Amendment moved.

Page 65, line 38, leave out ("five") and insert ("two").—(Lord Shepherd.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, this point concerns what are called "miniatures". The smallest quantity in which liquors are normally bottled in a standardised range is the "quarter" bottle, which is one containing about 6 2/3 rds fluid ounces, the standard full bottles containing 26 2/3rd fluid ounces. Below this standard of 6 2/3rd fluid ounces you are dealing with the specialised trade in miniatures, which are sold in bottles with fancy shapes and fancy wrappings. These bottles are attractive to look at, and people like them for that reason. But during their manufacture there may be some variation in the thickness or shape of the bottles which can have quite a substantial effect, in percentage terms, upon the quantity that can be put into them, and it would be unduly burdensome upon the trade to require them to guarantee the accuracy of a specific quantity. If we were to reduce the exemption limit in this paragraph from less than five to less than two ounces, that would bring most of this trade in miniatures within the marking requirement; whereas to maintain the limit at less than five fluid ounces will free the miniature trade without any risk of weakening the protection to the buyer of the standard range of spirit and liqueur bottles in quantities above that limit.

LORD SHEPHERD

Probably the noble Earl can help me here. I believe that these miniatures are being used on British Railways, by B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., not as something decorative but as a means of dispensing drinks. If they are decorative, I can see that there is reason for giving them exemption in this Bill, but if they are being used in the trade for dispensing drinks I think they should be covered by the minimum requirements in the Bill. I will not press the Amendment, but I wonder whether the noble Earl will look into it, and if they are being used for dispensing drinks in this way perhaps he will bring forward an Amendment himself.

LORD CROOK

May I support the request to the noble Earl to look at this matter, and say that I fully appreciate the point the noble Earl made about miniatures that are merely decorative? Some are in coloured ceramic pots and the like—whisky, I am sorry to say. What my noble friend Lord Shepherd has said is very true. One of the things many people like about nationalised British Railways and B.O.A.C. is that they have gone over to what people regard as a decent standard by providing drinks in miniature bottles. They are supposed to be one-sixteenth size. I understand that reputable manufacturers, making other than fancy bottles, would claim that to be true of all their standards. If the noble Earl will look at the matter, I am sure he will find something worth looking into.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I will look into it.

LORD SHEPHERD

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Fifth Schedule (continued):

PART VII

Fresh fruits and vegetables

1. References in this Part of this Schedule to fruits or vegetables of any description are references to such fruits or vegetables either—

1. (a) in the state in which they were harvested; or
2. (b) in the said state apart from cleaning or trimming; or

LORD STONHAM moved, in paragraph 1 (b), to leave out "trimming" and insert: the removal of inedible or extraneous matter, or cutting, dicing, or slicing. The noble Lord said: I think it will be somewhat of a relief to the noble Earl to move from the subject we have been discussing on to the less exciting subject of vegetables. But it is an extremely important subject to the horticulture industry, an industry which is in considerable difficulties, and which is perhaps the most depressed industry in the country, whose main hope for the future in my view lies in the development of pre-packaging. As presently drafted, the Bill requires any pre-packed produce which has been peeled, sliced, diced or otherwise prepared to come under paragraph 2 of Part XII, if only for the reason that they have not been specifically mentioned previously. They would therefore have to be sold on a strictly net weight basis, and the container marked with the net weight accordingly.

Produce prepared in the way indicated in the Amendment is an important part of the future development of pre-packaging. A lot of packers have been experimenting very successfully with stew packs—collections of sliced turnips, carrots, onions. They have been doing very well, because the housewife has been glad to get produce prepared in this way which is clean, ready for use, ready to be put right into the saucepan. Consequently, it is a section of the horticultural trade which is likely to grow. One of the difficulties, however, is that, quite naturally, produce prepared in this way, being already cut up, is more prone to loss of weight through evaporation even than whole vegetables—and, heaven knows! they lose weight through evaporation quickly enough since they are composed of 70 to 90 per cent. water. We feel it necessary to put sliced and diced vegetables in this Part of the Bill so that later on, when we come to consider Amendments which have been tabled to provide for selling by net weight at the time of packing, these prepared vegetables will come under those provisions.

Also in the Amendment we propose to substitute for the word "trimming" the words "the removal of inedible or extraneous matter". That is what we regard as a better description of the process which goes on than merely "trimming". This Amendment would be helpful to horticulturists and would clear the air for those who pre-pack their prepared vegetables, a growing industry. I hope the Government will be able to accept it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 65, line 45, leave out ("trimming") and insert ("the removal of inedible or extraneous matter, or cutting, dicing, or slicing.")—(Lord Stonham..)

LORD ST. OSWALD

This Amendment seeks to alter paragraph 1 of Part VII of the Schedule, which, in effect, describes the states in which fruits and vegetables shall be regarded as "fresh" And hence as falling within the scope of the provisions of this Part. The paragraph prescribes that these provisions shall apply when the fruits and vegetables "are in the state in which they were harvested", or are in that same state "apart from cleaning or trimming". The noble Lord's Amendment proposes to re-phrase the description of the state of "trimming" in a number of ways. The first words it uses for this purpose are, "the removal of inedible or extraneous matter". Taken by themselves those words appear to have virtually the same meaning as the word "trimming" used in the existing paragraph, and there is really no great objection to them in principle. We feel that the present drafting seems to do the job in a shorter and neater way.

But the Amendment goes further and proposes that fruits and vegetables which have been cut, diced or sliced should also fall under the provisions of this Part of the Schedule. The Government cannot see that this would in any way be helpful to consumers, and we think it would be straining the language and logic of the Bill to require such produce to be regarded as "fresh." If cut, diced or sliced fruits and vegetables of the classes covered by this Part are ever sold loose at retail, is difficult to see how the retailer could sell them otherwise than by weight; and there is therefore no need to make specific provision in this Part of the Bill, or in any other Pact, that they must be sold by weight.

If, as is more common, they are sold pre-packed, then the provisions of Part XII of this Schedule will require them to be marked with their net weight or number, and in saying not weight or measure we refer in practical terms to the practice of declaring their net weight. Further this requirement will apply to all fruits and vegetables which are pre-packed in this state, and not only to those varieties which are listed in Part VII of this Schedule. We think this is all the protection that the buyer of these pre-packed goods can reasonably wish Ito have. I wonder whether the noble Lord has appreciated !what I have said already: that if these goods are sold pre-packed—and he concentrated on the pre-packed element—then the provisions of Part XII of the Schedule will require them to be marked as he wishes.

LORD STONHAM

Yes, I appreciate that. In fact, I tried to say so in the remarks I made in support of the Amendment, not so clearly as the noble Lord has put it. But that is exactly the difficulty, because later on we shall be discussing Amendments whereby we hope, if the Government will accept them, that these pre-packed vegetables can be sold at net weight at the time of packing as the only reasonable way of getting over this great difficulty of the loss of weight. It is only two or three hours ago, when we were discussing cheese, that the noble Lord explained that all cheeses except Cheddar and Cheshire types had to be excluded from the Bill because they lose weight through evaporation. I told him then that I would remind him of that particular fact. There is no question at all that cheese loses weight by evaporation. Neither is there any question that sliced and diced vegetables lose weight far more rapidly and to a far greater extent than cheese.

I did not even conceive of anything so remarkable as removing these goods entirely from the Bill. We have been trying to find a way of doing justice to packers, retailers and consumers in the Amendments that we have deployed. But if the Government accept the view that, because of loss through evaporation, which is known, unavoidable and unpreventable, these products should be removed from the effect of the Bill, and the noble Lord can assure me that, having listened to the argument, he is going to be consistent and these vegetables will be removed from the Bill, then I shall be perfectly happy to withdraw the Amendment. But unless he can give an assurance of that kind I am afraid he has not given me an answer at all, but has merely repeated what I said in moving the Amendments.

LORD ST. OSWALD

It seems to me that we are back on this central dispute as to whether products must be marked with their weight at the time of packing or at the time of sale. Who is to estimate the difference—the packer or the consumer? We say throughout that the packer is more skilled and more likely to be able to estimate the difference in weight between the time of packing and the time of sale or consumption than the consumer himself. I do not really think the difference goes outside that. The noble Lord has in the last few minutes painted another difference, but I think we come down to that point again.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I think this is an argument that we need to pursue. I do not at all accept the last interpretation. I do not think a complete answer has been given to my noble friend. However, here we are. We are on the fiftieth Amendment today, and I think the time has arrived to report progress and ask leave to sit again. This is the point at which to move that the Committee be adjourned. If necessary, I shall move that the House be resumed.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

We are getting near to eleven o'clock. I was wondering whether there was time to dispose—

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I suggest that we go no further tonight.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I think we could dispose of this Amendment.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

No; we are not satisfied with the answer.

LORD SHEPHERD

I do not think the noble Earl appreciates that here there is a matter of principle and we shall want to deploy arguments just as much as the Government. It is now two minutes to eleven o'clock. Some of us have been sitting here since half-past-two. The noble Earl has been sitting here since then. I think that is long enough to put on even the most willing back. I shall support my noble Leader in moving that the House be now resumed.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

If noble Lords wish to pursue this Amendment further and are not willing to dispose of it now, before we rise, then I think the right thing to do is to accept the noble Viscount's Motion that the House be resumed.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I think I ought to move the Motion that the debate on this Amendment be adjourned.

Moved, That the debate on Amendment No. 124 be adjourned.—(Lord Merthyr.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

House resumed.