WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 31 January 1961 vol 228 cc118-80

4.0 p.m.

Report stage resumed.

Clause 53 [Penalties]:

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, this Amendment is a corollary to the Amendment to Clause 21 which I moved on Thursday last in order to meet the request made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, about keeping records for a period of twelve months. This Amendment would add the offences created by the new subsection (5) of Clause 21 to the list of offences set out in subsection (1) of Clause 53, which are to carry a penalty not exceeding £20. These offences relate to failure on the part of owners of public weighing or measuring equipment to retain records for twelve months, failure to produce such records for examination, and wilful destruction or defacement of records before the expiry of the statutory period. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 44, line 25, leave out ("or (4)") and insert ("(4) or (5)").—(The Earl of Dundee.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 55 [Regulations and orders]:

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to deal with this Amendment and the following Amendment, No. 66, together. Your Lordships will remember that subsection (3) of Clause 6 of the Bill, as we have now amended it, empowers the Board of Trade by order to specify a higher maximum fee for the testing of flash-point apparatus than that which was prescribed. We think it would meet the wishes of your Lordships, in view of the discussion we had on Clause 6 in Committee, if these orders were made subject to approval in draft by Resolution of each House of Parliament. Amendment No. 65 provides for this. It is obviously necessary that these orders should be capable of being varied or revoked by a subsequent order made under the same provision, and Amendment 66 would achieve this objective. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 45, line 22, at end insert— ("(b) the proviso to subsection (3) of section six:")

line 31, at end insert— ("(b) the proviso to subsection (3) of section six:").—(The Earl of Dundee.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 59 [Interpretation]:

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, this Amendment is designed to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on Part XII of the Fifth Schedule to the Bill. The noble Lord will remember that he moved as an Amendment: Page 70, line 34, after ("measurement") insert ("and in recognisable quantities which the Board shall specify by Regulation"). I think he was a little apprehensive about the way that such colloquial terms as "skinfuls" and "glassfuls" might be taken. I think I explained that the expression "capacity measurement", which appears frequently in the Bill, is a form of shorthand to cover measurement in terms of those units which are relevant to capacity; that is to say, the units specified in Part IV of the First Schedule to the Bill. By virtue of the Amendment I am now moving the definition will meet the noble Lord's point. I think it will be made clear to consumers that the marking of the container of a pre-packed article with an indication of quantity by capacity measurement will be a marking in terms of one or more of the units listed in Part IV of the First Schedule. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 46, leave out line 28 and insert ("a unit of measurement included in Part IV of the First Schedule to this Act:").—(The Earl of Dundee.)

LORD STONHAM

My Lords. I am most grateful to the noble Earl for meeting the point I raised. I would also congratulate him on having done it so neatly. Certainly it is a very much better way than that I thought of. It has the double advantage not only of meeting a point which he has agreed is essential and useful but also of removing from the Bill one of the most incomprehensible sentences there. So this is a kind of triple congratulation.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment relating to the definition of "liquor" in Clause 59. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Pace 47, line 31, leave out ("in") and insert ("for the purposes of").—(The Earl of Dundee.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Third Schedule [Measures and weights lawful for use for trade]:

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, is in his place at the moment, but in the Committee stage he moved an Amendment which I undertook to accept. The noble Lord argued that the addition of one quarter of a cubic yard to the list of measures would help traders such as builders' merchants, who frequently sell small quantities of goods like sand and ballast, and would satisfactorily replace the bushel which will become redundant five years after this Bill becomes law. I said that the Government would accept the Amendment in principle, but I pointed out that it did not permit the use of measures of multiples of quarter of a cubic yard which, as we have been informed, are needed in connection with the sale of ready-mixed cement and concrete. On my assurance, the noble Lord withdrew his Amendment. The present Amendment, I think, meets his intentions, and a further Amendment to permit the use of these measures for the sale of ready-mixed cement and concrete will be moved in connection with Part II of the Eighth Schedule to the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 57, line 9, leave out ("½") and insert ("¼").—(The Earl of Dundee.)

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Faringdon, who is unable to be here at present, I should like to thank the noble Earl for having acted on this point.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Fifth Schedule [Foods]:

PART I

Meat and food containing meat

2. Subject to paragraph 5 of this part of this Schedule, any goods to which this part of this Schedule applies which are not pre-packed 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 A of Part XIII of this Schedule, either by net weight or by gross weight.

4. Where any goods to which this part of this Schedule applies are sold by retail and, at the request of the buyer—

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

4.8 p.m.

LORD STONHAM moved 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 by net weight".

The noble Lord said: My Lords. I beg to move Amendment No. 70. We had a considerable discussion on this point on Committee stage, and the reason why this Amendment has now been tabled again is that my noble friends and I feel very strongly on the matter. It is a point of substance and an important point of principle in which we do not feel that the Government have given us any significant reason for persisting in their present attitude. What we are asking for, quite plainly, in this Amendment is that consumers should continue to enjoy what they have now; that is, the right when they buy a pound of meat to be sure that they are going to get a pound of meat—the right, in fact, to get net weight which they get now and which they are entitled to get.

All the responsible organisations of consumer opinion support us in this view and oppose the Government's viewpoint. If I may remind your Lordships, the Hodgson Committee in their Report said this upon this matter: We feel strongly that any violation of the principle of sale by net weight is, in theory at least, thoroughly undesirable. They go on to say that under some conditions, for hygienic reasons, it might be advisable to have a wrapper allowance when goods are wrapped by the shopkeeper in the customer's presence. They then go on to say: We do not consider that wrapper allowances should be given in retail sales of butcher's meat.

Now what is the Government's justification in respect to meat for this whole cumbrous machinery—setting up a series of permitted weights for containers and then telling the retailer that he is allowed to include the weights of those containers and sell by gross weight provided the actual weight of the container does not exceed the amount permitted in the Schedule? During the debate in Committee, it was obvious from what the noble Earl said that the real point which the Government could not get over was the fact that, for reasons of hygiene, it is the practice when meat is sold over the counter, as it still mostly is, to put a piece of greaseproof paper or a paper bag on the side of the scale where the meat is put.

Indeed, the noble Earl said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 227 (No. 25), col. 723]: As for unpre-packed meat,"— I am sure we shall forgive the expression "unpre-packed", but it means something which has not been packed at all— 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. I am sure we should all agree as to the necessity for the sale of meat to be as hygienic as possible. But then the noble Earl went on, by implication, to indicate that that is done at present, as indeed it is, and to imply that it was illegal, in these words: 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. His noble friend Lord Derwent went much further. He said [col. 728]: At the moment, the bit of paper in which your slices of ham are put is, as the law stands today, illegal, and this"— that is, the Bill— is trying lo make, in effect, that bit of paper legal

My Lords, I submit that the noble Earl and his noble friend Lord Derwent are quite wrong. There is nothing illegal about a shopkeeper putting a piece of greaseproof paper on the scales before weighing out the goods, providing that the customer receives the correct amount —that is, the net weight—of meat. It is left to the shopkeeper entirely how he is to achieve that feat. The noble Earl may remember that it can be simply done, as it is done to-day in many butchers' shops, merely by putting a piece of greaseproof paper on the other scale pan so that, when a similar piece of paper is put, as it were, underneath the meat, you get net weight. That is what is going on to-day. We get net weight to-day. The Government, in order that that should continue for the purposes of hygiene, have in the case of meat built up this very elaborate machinery which we wish to delete—the machinery indicated in paragraph 2—of having these container allowances. If the noble Earl studies again his own words Which he used in Committee, I am sure he will agree that the only possible justification for this paragraph is this little bit of greaseproof paper or paper bag.

Now may I, for a moment, deal with pre-packed goods—goods which are pre-packed and sold in containers, and as to which we are all agreed we do not want there to be any necessity for the shopkeeper to unpack them and weigh them again? There is no difficulty whatsoever for meat packers to pack by net weight. It is the simplest thing in the world; they are doing it now, and are putting the net weight of the contents on the package. The weighing is done by machinery and under conditions which permit of a net weight to the finest weighing. Therefore, if the Government accept this Amendment to delete paragraph 2 and insert the words that are on the Paper, the trade will be in no difficulty at all—neither the pre-packers nor the retail purveyors of meat. They will go on doing exactly what most of them are doing now, and will go on providing the consumer with the net weight to which he or she is entitled.

At present there is not, and there never has been, a wrapper allowance in the meat trade, and there is absolutely no justification whatever for introducing one. The principal object of this very Rood Bill is to give the consumers greater protection. This particular paragraph takes away part of the present protection which they have, and I do not think we are justified in letting it go by. I hope the Government will therefore accept this Amendment, which we regard as quite an important one and which we shall press. I beg to move.

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

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, I do not believe that in regard to some of the articles to which the noble Lord has referred it is practicable to do what he suggests. I suggest that the practice has come into being of a butcher putting greaseproof paper on the scales for obvious reasons—for cleanliness. There is no packing allowance, and it may be that he gives a little overweight to make up for it. But the idea that he can put another piece of paper on the other side of the scales to balance is not a practicable one for present conditions, because most of the modern scales do not have a second pan. I should prefer that the Bill should make honest the present practice rather than try to impose a practice which would become impracticable, because that is what it would be. The butcher still has to put his greaseproof paper on the scales, and it will be impossible for him to balance it, so he will have to do precisely what he does at the moment. This Bill legalises the present position, and I think the noble Lord's Amendment would make him still to be in breach of the law when doing the only thing which it is practicable for him to do.

4.18 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, we are, of course, bound to recognise the importance which the noble Lord and his friends attach to this Amendment, because they have so frequently pressed it upon your Lordships. I am afraid it seems to be one of those matters—I am glad to think there are not a large number of them in this Bill—on which it is evidently not possible to bridge the gulf of disagreement between us. As the noble Lord said, we had in Committee a full discussion on this Amendment which ended up with a Division, as a result of which the Amendment was negatived; and we had an even fuller discussion, I think, on that part of the Schedule which deals with the permitted size of containers for various classes of goods which are allowed to be sold by gross weight provided that the container in which they are sold does not exceed certain limits which are defined in the Bill.

As it is drafted now, paragraph 2 of Part I of the Fifth Schedule requires meat which is not pre-packed to be sold either by net weight or by gross weight, provided that the container in which it is sold does not weigh more than the amount specified in Table A of Part XIII. This Amendment, like the noble Lord's previous one in Committee, would have the effect of requiring all goods, whether pre-packed or not, to be sold by net weight only. As I told your Lordships in Committee, our purpose in allowing meat 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 scale before weighing the meat, so avoiding making the platform messy and the need to wipe it at frequent intervals. As compared with the existing law, the meats covered by the Schedule now include cooked and processed meats and offals, as well as ordinary butchers' meat, and sale by gross weight would permit some ham or tongue to be weighed after some liver without the need for the trader to clean the platform of his scales immediately beforehand. I think that is particularly important nowadays, in view of the fact that so many traders are increasing the variety of the goods which they sell.

The container weights in question, of course, are set out in Table A of Part XIII of this Schedule. I do not think we should discuss them now, and I do not know whether or not any of your Lordships will want to go into them again when we reach Part XIII. There is not much new which has come up on the noble Lord's Amendment at Report stage. I just disagree with him about putting a similar weighted piece of paper on another pan of the weighing machine. As my noble friend Lord Hawke has just pointed out, I do not think there is another weight pan on which a counterbalancing piece of paper can be put; the majority of the machines now used in shops— that is, the self-indicating machine—have only one pan, the pan on which the goods are placed. As my noble friend Lord Hawke said (I thought he put the whole case very succinctly and very well), the law, strictly speaking, is now being broken, and we are legalising here a good and excellent practice which, in my submission to your Lordships ought to be continued and not voted against.

The noble Lord also referred to pre-packed goods; and this, in my view, is another reason why this Amendment is unacceptable. As the Amendment is worded, it requires pre-packed goods to be sold only by net weight, which I think would be quite impracticable. This Bill nowhere requires pre-packed articles to be sold by weight at all, because a retailer cannot know, without unpacking the goods, the weight of the contents. What we do require to be done is that, when pre-packed goods are sold, they should be marked with an accurate marking of the weight of the contents of the container, and provision is made in Clause 27 for such a weight-marking, put on by the supplier at a packing plant, to be a warranty on which the retailer can rely, provided, of course, he has taken all reasonable precautions. I am sorry that we cannot come nearer to agreement on this point. I can only assure the noble Lord that I feel just as

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.35 P.m.

LORD STONHAM moved to omit paragraph 4. The noble Lord said: My Lords, paragraph 4 places two requirements on the retailer of meat. If, at the request of the buyer he removes certain parts of the meat, which is not strongly the undesirability of his Amendment as he does its desirability.

4.24 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I do not propose to develop that argument, particularly at this stage of the Bill, but I must tell the noble Earl and the House that we on this side regard this Amendment as a matter of great principle, and therefore we shall divide. It is possible to sell pre-packed goods by net weight. There is a vast range of food merchandise which is today being sold by net weight, and we believe that it is possible for the food merchandise within this particular Part of the Schedule to be sold by net weight. Therefore, I hope that my noble friends will take this Amendment to a Division.

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

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 56.

CONTENTS
Airedale, L.	Latham, L.	Shepherd, L. [Teller.]
Alexander of Hillsborough, V.	Lawson, L.	Silkin, L.
Amulree, L.	Ogmore, L.	Stonham, L. [Teller.]
Chorley, L.	Pakenham, L.	Taylor, L.
Citrine, L.	Pethick-Lawrence, L.	Williams, L.
Henderson, L.	Shackleton, L.	Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Ailwyn, L.	Ebbisham, L.	Newton, L. [Teller.]
Albemarle, E.	Elliot of Harwood, B.	Raglan, L.
Amory, V.	Forbes, L.	Rathcavan, L.
Ampthill, L.	Freyberg, L.	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Atholl, D.	Furness, V.	St. Oswald, L.
Auckland, L.	Goschen, V.	Salisbury, M.
Baden-Powell, L.	Hastings, L.	Sinclair of Cleeve, L.
Balfour of Inchrye, L.	Hawke, L.	Somers, L.
Bethell, L.	Howard of Glossop, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Buckinghamshire, E.	Jessel, L.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Clitheroe, L.	Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Swinton, E.
Coleraine, L.	Lloyd, L.	Teviot, L.
Conesford, L.	Long, V.	Teynham, L.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Luke, L.	Torrington, V.
Cottesloe, L.	McCorquodale of Newton, L.	Waleran, L.
De La Warr, E.	Merrivale, L.	Winterton, E.
Denham, L.	Milne, L.	Wolverton, L.
Derwent, L.	Milverton, L.	Woolton, E.
Dundee, E.	Newall, L.

handed over the counter and delivery is deferred, he must put on a ticket the weight before the material was removed and the net weight, and these weights must be on a ticket at the time of delivery. Even if nothing, is removed from the meat, if delivery is deferred the two weights, when bought and when actually delivered, must be put on the ticket.

I am pleased to note that the noble Earl has tabled an Amendment—the one immediately following mine—to remove the second requirement. I do not want to develop any of the arguments which I used in Committee, because they are perfectly clear. I tried to explain that this requirement is ridiculous and absurd, and I do not think that anyone is prepared to dispute that. If there is anything to be said for it, it is that it is the law as it stands at present. I pointed out to the noble Earl that there has been no complaint about this stupid provision because nobody had ever taken any notice of it. The butchers did not observe the law and that was why, so far as I was aware, there had been no prosecutions for the infringement of this particular provision in the present law. I am sure that since then the noble Earl will have made inquiries on this point, and he will know whether or not I was accurate in saying that there had been no prosecutions and that this provision in the present law is completely disregarded because it is silly and unworkable. Therefore, I would ask the noble Earl, not merely lo take away half this useless requirement, but to accept my Amendment and remove the other half. There is no justification whatever for this provision, and when a law is disregarded and thereby brought into contempt, it is part of wisdom to amend the law. I beg to move.

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

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, since the noble Lord referred to Amendments which I have on the Marshalled List, I am sure that it would be for our general convenience if we discussed them all together— that is to say, the next Amendment, No. 72, and No. 76 and 77, which are on the same point.

LORD STONHAM

Would the noble Earl allow me to interrupt? While I agree that No. 72 is on the same point, the other two, with respect, are not because they refer to poultry, to which I should also like to object, but which I did not mention in moving my Amendment.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, they refer to poultry in certain conditions. When the provisions of this paragraph were discussed in Committee, they were criticised by the noble Lord, on grounds of which he has reminded your Lordships, as imposing a burden upon the trader altogether out of proportion to the protection they give the consumer. The Government, on the other hand, were reluctant to dispense with a form of protection which had applied to deliveries of meat since 1926. In the case of poultry, which the noble Lord has just mentioned, as well as in the case of meat, the Government were fortified by the views of the Hodgson Committee. We thought that a similar requirement should, logically, be applied also to fish. We still think that where a joint of meat is boned or trimmed while awaiting delivery to the buyer's house there is a danger of a smaller joint being substituted, owing to the buyer's difficulty in recognising a boned joint that was delivered as the same article as the one selected in the shop. We therefore feel that the law should provide for the delivery note to be sent.

However, we have no wish to press your Lordships to agree to the extension of this provision to classes of commodities where the need for such a provision may not be so obvious, and may even, as the noble Lord has so often urged, lead to absurdities. One effect of the Amendments which I have on the Marshalled List will be to remove all sales of fish under Part II of this Schedule from the scope of this requirement. Thus, the delivery note which is required under Clause 24 will state simply the weight at the time of purchase in the case of fish as of all the other commodities to which it applies.

In regard to meat and poultry (which I think, in spite of the distinction the noble Lord made, I should consider together, because I believe that they fall to be considered together in the present context) my Amendments to Part I and Part II of the Schedule will narrow the scope of this provision, so that it will not apply where the delivery of the goods has simply been deferred without any boning or trimming having taken place. Here again. Clause 24 will be left to operate in its simple form of requiring the delivery note to state the weight at the time of purchase. This will relieve the shopkeeper of the need to re-weigh the goods when the delivery has been deferred for a short time and when the weight should, in fact, be identical, or nearly so, with the weight at time of purchase; and even if delivery has been deferred for a longer period, it should normally be possible, given that the meat or poultry has not been processed in any way, for the alert buyer or the inspector to detect at least a bad case of fraud if there is a large discrepancy between the weight as delivered and the weight at time of purchase.

In spite of what the noble Lord has said, I think there remains some real difficulty in applying the delivery note provisions of Clause 24 to meat or poultry which is boned or dressed after the sale is complete. Of course, there is a lot of poultry now which is dressed before being offered for sale, and what we are discussing would not apply to that at all. But turkey and many joints of meat are now commonly offered for sale before boning or dressing takes place. Thus, the meat is bought with its bones and the turkey is bought complete at so much a pound. And it is fairly common for the butcher, whether in response to a request in the shop or a telephone order, to prepare the joint or bird for the oven, greatly reducing its weight in the process, and send it round to the customer.

The question then arises as to what weight should be put on the delivery ticket. Ought he to put on the total weight which he sold? This is the only one the customer can remember, but it is certainly not the weight he is delivering. Alternatively, ought he to put on the ticket the weight which he is delivering, which is not the weight that is actually sold? In the case of the weekend joint the consumer is often spending a considerable amount, and it does not seem unreasonable that she should be given both weights so that she, or the inspector, can judge the amount which has been taken out and question any disproportionate loss of weight. I think we have to remember, first, that the two weights will be the same if the butcher sends the bones with the joint; secondly, that if he does not do so he may be able to put the bones to some use of his own; and, thirdly, that in the case of turkeys, which are the poultry most likely to be affected, the difference between the weight ordered and the weight delivered may be considerable.

The noble Lord asked whether any prosecutions have taken place under the existing law. So far as I can ascertain, they have not. I think the noble Lord is right in suggesting that there have been none, or a negligible number. As to whether the law may be widely neglected, of course, we cannot ascertain that. I have no doubt that it is neglected in many cases, but I still feel that it ought to be imposed and, if possible, enforced. We do not think that the additional protection which is provided for the consumer should water down both the existing law and the Hodgson Committee's proposals on this point. I would suggest that those of your Lordships who think that a continuation of this law is unnecessary ought to tell us whether they are against delivery tickets altogether. If they are in favour of delivery tickets, then do they think that the stated weight should be that on which the purchase price was based, or should it be that of the meat as delivered to the consumer? That is a difficult question, and I should not like to make up my mind about it. I think it is much more satisfactory, and does not impose intolerable trouble on anyone, to require by law that both weights should be stated.

We have done our best to remove as many absurdities from the situation as we think can reasonably be done, and we certainly do not want to do anything which might lead to unreasonable requirements. We feel that what we are leaving in the Bill is not unreasonable and that we have gone a fair length to meet the noble Lord's arguments on this matter.

4.47 p.m.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, I supported the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on the last occasion in his gibes at fish and, to some extent, poultry, although not in his gibes so far as meat is concerned. I do not suppose it much matters if the two weights have to be put on a delivery ticket; but, quite frankly, in my view it can serve no useful purpose. Suppose one goes in and orders six cutlets, which are to be trimmed and sent, and that you have a dishonest butcher (because that is presupposed: it is an essential part of the argument), who wants to send you smaller cutlets. He will probably have trimmed a couple of hundred that morning, some of which have not been taken away and have not been delivered. If he is going to be dishonest he trims a smaller cutlet and puts some of the stuff that has been cut off other people's cutlets into your parcel. This requirement of two weights will not stop him from doing that. The weight of the parcel arriving will be as is on the note, but in fact it will be somebody's else's bones, If you have an honest butcher the question does not arise. So I do not think it matters very much. The requirement involves a certain amount of additional labour; I cannot see that it will work, and it seems to me unnecessary.

LORD HAWKE

I agree with my noble friend Lord Derwent. I am not in the least in a dilemma as to what is the proper weight to put on the delivery ticket. The proper weight to put on the delivery ticket is the weight that is ultimately going to be charged in the bill, because the purpose for which the housewife wants the delivery ticket is to check her weekly or monthly bill to see that it is correct. I defy any housewife to tell whether she has been given the proper amount of rolled ribs out of a joint of ribs of beef unless her butcher is not only a knave but a fool as well. Quite frankly I cannot see the virtue of removing fish from this provision and applying it to meat, because in most cases the wastage in filleting fish is, I should have thought, at least as great as the wastage in dealing with a joint of meat or a bird. I agree with my noble friend who has just spoken that this is merely going Ito cause a little more trouble to butchers than they are having at the moment; and will be no deterrent alt all to the dishonest man because it will be quite impossible Ito catch him as a result of this provision.

LORD WOLVERTON

My Lords, I am glad that the Government have seen fit Ito remove sub-paragraph (b) where delivery of the goods to the buyer is deferred. That was one of the points of which I was critical in the case of meat, poultry and fish. I said at the time that I thought it was a useful provision for meat, and I was advised by my county council that they welcomed the idea of having it extended to poultry. But I do not think anybody wants the bones of fish, and I thought that was an unnecessary pro vision. I am glad that the Government have taken out sub-paragraph (b) in both cases.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I rise again only because the noble Earl asked me two quesions. The first was: Are you against the weight ticket? Of course I am not. I think a weight ticket is both necessary and desirable. The second question is one really asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke: What weight should go on the ticket? There can only be one answer; and that is the weight which the customer has already bought and from which the customer has asked for something to be removed. The material which is removed clearly belongs to the customer. It is part of the original weight; it is hers for disposal or to give away in whatever manner it is thought necessary.

There is this difficulty. My noble friends have made it quite clear, and given their reasons for saying why they think this Amendment is reasonable and should be acceded to. What rather disturbs me is this. The noble Earl has been good enough to say that he has no knowledge of any substantial number of prosecutions or, indeed, of any prosecutions at all. Therefore my statement that the present law is disregarded is virtually unchallenged and. I should have thought, unchallengeable. The question that now arises is this. The law has been disregarded, and has brought no penalties. There have been no prosecutions—

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

That is so, but there may be no prosecutions because the law is not being disregarded.

LORD STONHAM

The noble Earl will remember that I said I have made quite a number of inquiries and failed to find a single butcher who was observing the law. I found some who did not know that such a law existed. That is prima facie evidence that this particular provision is attracting the attention neither of the butchers nor of Her Majesty's inspectors of weights and measures. It is a good thing, since apparently the noble Earl is not going to accept this Amendment, that these things should be said, so that it can be clearly known, when the Bill goes to another place, and further consideration can be given to it on these lines. I feel that it is quite wrong, when a law is being completely disregarded, to perpetuate it. That is the greatest case for the acceptance of this Amendment, and I should like the noble Earl to say whether the law is now going to be pursued vigorously and that we shall have a crop of prosecutions for something which nobody wants.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords. I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 61, line 33, leave out from ("goods") to end of line 34.—(The Earl of Dundee.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Fifth Schedule (continued):

PART II

Fish, poultry and sausages

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.

4.55 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON moved, in paragraph 2 (2) of Part II ["Fish, poultry and sausages"], after "fish" to insert: exempted under paragraph 5 of this part of this Schedule".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment should, if it is agreeable to your Lordships, be taken with Amendment No. 79. The purpose of these two Amendments is to make another attempt—I made one attempt on the Committee stage—to bring fish within the provisions of this Schedule in regard to wholesale sales. I confess that I am not certain whether these Amendments are wholly satisfactory from a drafting point of view, but I have been in correspondence with the noble Earl and pointed out the reasons why I am still pressing for this point to be taken into account in the Bill.

On the Committee stage, I urged that if it was right for the retailer to sell by weight, then, in principle, other things making it possible, the wholesaler who supplies the retailer should have a similar obligation imposed upon him, on the principle which the noble Earl himself has raised on one or two occasions of having a continuous chain. This provision will provide fair play for the retailer. One of the reasons why we have drafted the Amendments in this form is to omit the sale of herrings when sold by cran measure. It is a general custom in the herring trade, so I am informed, and everyone knows what a cran or a subdivision of a cran is. So far as herrings are concerned, they would be outside what we are now proposing, in that they could be sold by cran. When we discussed this matter on the Committee stage, the Government resisted my Amendment, partly on the grounds that so many exceptions would have to be taken into account that it would be rather an effort to produce a satisfactory Amendment. They were also doubtful whether it was necessary, because they said that Clause 25—we have heard this fairly often, and I agree it is generally a good argument—provides some general protection. Our contention is that Clause 25 does not provide satisfactory protection.

As the Bill stands, the wholesaler is under no obligation to sell by net weight—this is the important point—and until such a sale has actually been made no offence can arise. This was the point made in the Hodgson Report, paragraph 276, when they argued the weakness of the buyers' case. There is no point in the inspector inspecting packages made up for consignment unless there is a compulsion to sell by net weight. As I said, no offence can occur until the package is actually dispatched. It is argued also that one of the difficulties is that there is not always time to weigh fish in secondary wholesale sales. But long before the present Bill was framed, the Board of Trade tried to bring in regulations to compel all sales of fish by retail to be made by net weight only. In the consultations which took place with the trade at that time, the retail trade, the fishmongers, argued that the public were perfectly content to buy on sight.

This method of sale by weight which came into force under the war-time system of price control, is no longer resisted by the fishmongers. They say that they will accept it, hut they argue that it is only fair that they should be protected and that what is imposed for them ought to be imposed for wholesalers. It should be noted that where a sale is by stone —10 stone weight for instance—this will be perfectly acceptable, and of course there will have to be proper tolerance to ensure full weight on despatch. The wholesalers have said—and I think this is the evidence which was given before the Hodgson Committee, and the noble Earl himself admitted it—that they do not oppose this particular principle. I hope that the Government will consider this matter. They have said that if the present protection is not enough they will exercise the powers they have to make an order to provide the protection, and I submit they might as well do it now and get it into the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 62, line 17, after ("fish") insert ("exempted under paragraph 5 of this part of this Schedule").—(Lord Shackleton.)

5.2 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the Government and the Hodgson Committee are all agreed that crans of herring should be exempted from compulsory sales by weight. The difficulties arise about other kinds of fish in other kinds of boxes. The Hodgson Committee recommended that apart from crans, sales should be by weight. The noble Lord has supported their recommendation, and the Government were at first very much inclined to favour that and to take the same view. It has, however, become clear, the more we looked into the matter, that there are other categories of sales which merit exemption on grounds similar to those conceded by the Hodgson Committee. In particular, there are the second sales after landing at the ports between the larger and the smaller wholesalers. The smaller wholesalers cannot buy in the large quantities offered for auction at the port, and when the second sales take place the fish is still in the same roughly-packed condition as when it was first landed, and the same need for an exemption arises.

Then the first sales of landed fish, which often take place in inland markets, need exactly the same exemption as similar sales at the port markets, and there would be great confusion if some sales at inland markets were exempted from the law while alongside them sales of fish which happened to be second sales, whether or not the fish had been reboxed, fell within the requirements. In short, the exemption for first sales after landing would, I think, be likely to become a subject of confusion to both the traders and the enforcing authorities alike, confusion which could hardly be of much benefit to anybody.

The present Amendment would not only prevent the second sale of unboxed, roughly-weighed fish being made to the smaller wholesaler and thus put these traders at a disadvantage: it would also, lead, in our view, to a muddle at the inland markets between what are technically first sales and the rest of the sales to which I have referred. The noble Lord argued that Clause 25 would not necessarily be a protection to the retailer who is purchasing from the wholesaler. I think in fact the trade is virtually always conducted in terms of net weight when it reaches that stage, and, of course, the general prohibition against short weight and misrepresentation in Clause 25 would give the fishmonger the protection he needs.

I think that what the noble Lord had in mind was that sellers might seek to circumvent it by ceasing to trade in terms of weight in favour of sales by the box or the crate to the fishmonger the final retailer. Of course, that might happen. I should have thought retailers do not lack means to resist any such development which they dislike. But if any such undesirable development should take place the Government, in the light of experience, would have powers under Clause 22 to require the trade to revert to terms of weight, and if there were abuses which justified the measures which are required to prevent it those measures would certainly be taken, even though they might occasionally delay the passage of fish to the consumer. But we do not want to put in the Bill measures of that kind which we think may not be necessary to protect fishmongers and which might have confusing and undesirable effects. I am sorry that we cannot agree on this matter, either with the Hodgson Committee or with the very reasonable case which the noble Lord has put forward, but I hope I have sufficiently repeated for doing so the reasons which I had already given to your Lordships in Committee.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, this is the sort of case in regard to which people in the country and people in both Houses must get quite disgusted with central Government. We have listened carefully to the argument of the noble Earl, but he has not moved an inch from the brief supplied to him by people who apparently know little about the actual practice in the wholesale and retail sections of the fish trade. The Government are taking up a line on this matter and hesitating to protect the ultimate trader as well as the consumers because they have somebody in a central Department who advises against the known views, based upon practice, of both the retail and the wholesale sections of the fish trade. The noble Earl has not given this afternoon a little bit of technical evidence to contradict the case put by the fishmongers themselves and based on a recommendation by the Hodgson Committee. The Government simply say they do not agree. Why not? They do not know themselves.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I would remind the noble Viscount that I said that the Government were very much inclined to favour the recommendation of the Hodgson Committee, and it was as a result of conversations with people who know something about it that we were forced to a different conclusion.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

Who are the people who know something about it, compared to those who are in the business?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

They are in the business.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

Which business?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

The wholesale trade.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I think we ought to know who they are, because we have a communication from people who are in both sides of the trade.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I am very interested to hear what the noble Viscount says and also to have the information which he passes on. Of course, the Board of Trade have to have discussions with everybody engaged in all branches of the trade before they come to a conclusion. I do not say that their conclusions will always be right, but at least they are always based, not on the prejudice of somebody high up in the Department but on careful, prolonged discussions with people in the trade who have the necessary knowledge.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

They have come to a strange decision.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, the noble Earl said—and I am grateful for this assurance—that if after the Bill becomes an Act there is evidence of abuse, the Government will act; but what action will they take that they cannot take now in the Bill? What the noble Earl has in fact said is that the Government see no way in this Bill, no practical way, of ensuring that fish can be sold wholesale by net weight. That is the reason for rejecting my noble friend's Amendment. The noble Earl has said that the Government are very much attracted to this proposal, that they would like to do it, but that they do not see how to do it. Then he said that if the unfortunate retailer is abused (as indeed he will be) he can come back to the Government and they will take some action—they do not know what—that they cannot take now. Really, with all respect, that is not something we can accept.

This Bill insists that the fish retailer must sell his fish net weight. That is what we all want. The Bill also says that the wholesaler from whom the retailer buys his fish may sell it in any way he likes; the retail fishmonger cannot even demand that the fish should be sold by the wholesaler by weight at all. The only sanction he can employ is to say to the wholesaler "if you will not sell it by weight, I will not buy it from you", which probably means that he will not get any fish at all. This position exists in no other commodity in the Bill. There is no other section of traders which has been treated in this extraordinarily favoured way which the Government confer on the wholesalers of fish.

I should be the first to agree with the noble Earl that this is a difficult matter; but it is by no means impossible, and I think it can be done by the trade if my noble friend's Amendment is accepted. The noble Earl asked: "What would happen when, to some extent, bulk is broken? Then you get the main wholesaler at the port who sells to a lesser wholesaler." But that second person is again a wholesaler. It is still a sale of fish by wholesale; it is not a sale by retail. So there is no difficulty there. There are difficult techniques within the trade, but the difficulty of requiring the wholesaler of fish to sell by net weight is no greater than the difficulty in the case of the wholesaler of vegetables or any other commodity. I hope that between now and Third Reading the noble Earl will look at these points again to see, since the Government are in sympathy with my noble friend's objective, whether they themselves can suggest some way of dealing with this; because at present, if the Bill goes from here as it is now drafted, it will be an obvious injustice and one which we ought not to accept.

5.13 p.m.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, I, too, have been approached by the retail fish trade to try to make it possible for sales from wholesalers to retailers to be by net weight, but I am doubtful whether it is practicable. I must admit that I have only once visited Grimsby Docks and seen the process going through; but it seems to me that, from the moment of landing, the fish is almost inextricably mixed up with ice, so that at any stage at which it became necessary to net-weigh the fish it would have to be carefully washed clean of all existing ice, weighed, re-packed in a box and fresh ice put in. That seems to me to add considerably to the time of handling; and anybody who has seen the docks when a number of trawlers come in knows that there is no time to spare for anything. So, however one may sympathise with the retailers, this operation does not seem to be practicable.

LORD JESSEL

My Lords, I must say that I have listened carefully and I am not impressed by the Government's answer. I think it is a fact that in the evidence before the Hodgson Committee the wholesalers did agree in principle that this was possible. Therefore, in spite of what my noble friend Lord Hawke says about the practical difficulties, if the wholesalers in their evidence before the Committee said that it was possible, I still think that it is possible.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

That was ten years ago.

LORD JESSEL

Well, conditions have not changed all that much in regard to fish. In view of the feeling on both sides of the House, I would ask the Government to think again about this.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I am more than confused by the Government's attitude in this matter. The noble Earl said "We do not really need to worry because fish is generally sold at these various stages by net weight." If that is so, then let it be enforceable. His arguments against this were based on what he thought was my fear that there might be a change in present practice. My fear is not that; it is that the full sanction of this Bill and the full power of the inspectors to operate this particular protection given under Clause 25 is inadequate. Although he is quite prepared to do something if it becomes necessary and something goes wrong, the noble Earl said that one of the objections to doing this was that there are too many exceptions. He did not mention any other exception. The only exceptions he mentioned were those that related to further sales after the first landing. It is true that these further sales take place: I am told that they frequently take place in some form of container which I think is known as a kit and which is, in fact, an established size of container, a ten-stone container.

It seems to me that at some stage, if weight is to mean anything, and if Clause 25 is to mean anything—and the Government are relying on Clause 25 to give protection—fish must be broken down into a net-weight form. We are seeking to protect the position of the retailer and ensure that what is sent to him ostensibly as a certain weight is, in fact, the proper weight, by making it an offence to pack and send fish in any other form. It is not enough just to say that if the weight is not correct the remedy is in the hands of the retailer. I do not know what the noble Earl thinks the retailer is going to do when he receives fish early in the morning. Has he to put it aside, like some packed biscuits which can be left until an inspector can be sent for?

This is one of the difficulties we have had in other parts of the Bill. What we are trying to do is to bring the power of the inspectorate into operation at an earlier stage. This is the object behind these Amendments. I think the

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I beg to move No. 76.

Amendment moved— Page 62, line 35, leave out ("any fish or")—(The Earl of Dundee.)

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for having completely met us on this point which, I hope he will agree, has improved the Bill.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I beg to move.

Government ought to face this rather more seriously than, I am sorry to say, they appear to have done. I think that the noble Earl has not himself examined closely enough what are these difficulties. He is assured by certain friends or advisers—we do not expect him to name them—that this method is not workable; but others say it is. I think he ought to give us some assurance that he is prepared to reconsider seriously this point before Third Reading.

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

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 47.

CONTENTS
Alexander of Hillsborough,V.	Furness, V.	Shepherd, L. [Teller.]
Amwell, L.	Latham, L.	Silkin, L.
Atholl, D.	Lawson, L.	Stonham, L. [Teller.]
Chorley, L.	Listowel, E.	Taylor, L.
Citrine, L.	Pethick-Lawrence, L.	Williams, L.
Crook, L.	Shackleton, L.	Wise, L.
Douglas of Barloch, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Ailwyn, L.	Fortescue, E.	Radnor, E.
Albemarle, E.	Goschen, V.	Raglan, L.
Amory, V.	Gosford, E.	Rathcavan, L.
Ampthill, L.	Hastings, L.	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Baden-Powell, L.	Hawke, L.	St. Oswald, L.
Balfour of Inchrye, L.	Howard of Glossop, L.	Sinclair of Cleeve, L.
Bossom, L.	Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Somers, L.
Buchan, E.	Lloyd, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Buckinghamshire, E.	Long, V.	Tenby, V.
Clitheroe, L.	Luke, L.	Teviot, L.
Conesford, L.	McCorquodale of Newton, L.	Torrington, V.
Davidson, V.	Merrivale, L.	Tweedsmuir, L.
Derwent, L.	Milverton, L.	Waleran, L.
Dundee, E.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.	Winterton, E.
Ebbisham, L.	Newall, L.	Wolverton, L.
Forbes, L.	Newton, L. [Teller.]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 62, line 39, leave out from ("goods") to end of line 40.—(The Earl of Dundee.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.30 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will agree that we do take trouble to look into his propositions and agree with them when we can find there is enough justification. The noble Lord moved, in Committee, that whitebait should be sold in terms of weight only. We resisted this on the around that there is a practice, particularly, I believe, in the North-West of England, of selling whitebait by the pint or half-pint; and we did not want to interfere with this trade practice. But as the noble Lord pointed out, the practice is limited. Moreover, our attention has been drawn to the fact that whitebait is coming to be retailed pre-packed in lightweight wrappers. There would not be any justification, I think, for exempting pre-packed whitebait from the general requirements of this Part of the Schedule, and the Amendment which I now move, would accordingly bring all retail sales of whitebait within its scope, as the noble Lord proposed to do in Committee. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 63, line 14, leave out ("whitebait")—(The Earl of Dundee.)

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl. It is not the largest part of the fish trade to which he has conceded, but at this moment we are thankful even for "tiddlers". I am interested to see that the noble Earl, even if he does not listen to us while in the House, does listen to us outside it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHACKLETON moved to insert after paragraph 2 (c): (), Any sale by wholesale of herrings by cran measure".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had not intended to bring forward this Amendment, because it ties on—and I made it clear—to Amendment 74, but at that time I was hoping that the Government were going to accept Amend-merit 74. Since they are not, and we know that that is defeated, there is not much advantage in inserting this particular set of additional words. None the less, I am moving it to enable the noble Earl to give an answer which he did not give on Amendment 74. I realise that he has kept his spirits up very well for a long and tedious period, but I thought he looked particularly tired at the end of that debate. I am wondering whether he has had the opportunity to refresh himself, all the more so since he bad the advantage of knowing the arguments I was going to put forward not only in moving but in replying to his reply. So I thought he was in a position to be particularly well briefed against the case we put forward.

I would emphasise again that the reason we have moved this Amendment is that the retailer is in an exceedingly weak position. There is a further point which I neglected to make on Amendment 74, namely, that quite apart from the fact that there is no control at the time of departure—the inspectorate are not in a position to act—and quite apart from the fact that the retailer may not be able to call the inspector in on receipt, furthermore the retailer may not even know what the weight is supposed to be, because the invoice frequently does not accompany the case. It is not convenient to pack an invoice in the middle of a lot of fish. Therefore, it comes by post on a later occasion. So when it arrives by post it will be too late to do anything about it. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl the Minister will at this stage tell us what further arguments he can produce against the case we put forward, bearing in mind that this may relieve some of his colleagues in another place when the matter is fought out there. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 63, line 17, at end insert— ("() Any sale by wholesale of herrings by cran measure").—(Lord Shackleton.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I do not know whether it is the noble Lord or I who is in need of a few drinks. Surely this Amendment was put down on the assumption that his former Amendment would be carried, and surely the reason why he put it on to the Paper was that if we accepted his first Amendment he would still be willing to exempt herrings sold by the cran. Is that not right? In that case, I do not see how this or any further Amendment can arise. We have concluded the argument and voted on No. 74, and I think there is a limit to the extent to which we can repeat the same arguments over and over again, with great respect to the noble Lord, who may not think much of my arguments. I never get tired of hearing him repeat himself, because I enjoy listening to him repeating himself, but there is a limit to which one can go on repeating that A is B while the other person says that A is not B to an indefinite extent.

The only other point I would have made, if the noble Lord had pressed me on his original Amendment, was that under this Bill very few commodities are required to be sold by weight wholesale, even though retail sales have to be by weight. With regard to this Amendment, I cannot quite see the object served by discussing it, because it cannot arise from anything that has been done.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, my object was, I think, quite clear: to give the noble Earl an opportunity to answer those further arguments which he did not answer; he remained seated. I do not think it is quite good enough to say that one person says one colour and another says another, or whatever the example may be. There was a serious argument and this Amendment provided me with an opportunity to put forward another argument which, I confess, I forgot on the earlier Amendment. But there is clearly no point in pressing the matter, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, we did originally move to delete the provision that any sale of fish or poultry at a purchase price of less than sixpence should be exempt from the provisions of this Part of the Schedule, in the belief that nowadays hardly any items of food of this kind are sold for human consumption at this price level, but my noble friend, Lord Hawke, I think, rightly pointed out that individual fish cakes and similar items might possibly be sold for sixpence. I am grateful to the noble Lord for calling our attention to this point. Accordingly, we see no objection to retaining this exemption and indeed, by means of the present Amendment, extending it slightly to cover sales at the round six-pennyworth as well as at prices below that.

Amendment moved— Page 63, line 20, leave out ("less than sixpence") and insert ("sixpence or less")—(The Earl of Dundee.)

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for meeting me. He has lifted a grave threat to the trade in fish cakes and cods' heads, for which the trade will be duly grateful.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

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 Part 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.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH moved to leave out paragraph 2 and to insert instead: 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: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. On the basis of the arguments made last time (and I do not warn to speak at any length or in any detail) we seek to impose this general requirement. We would draw attention to the fact that our inquiries have shown that all the classes of cheeses that are to be exempted at present under the terms of the Bill from being sold by net weight are, in fact, even when they are classed as imported cheese, like blue Danish and other foreign sorts, sold in their own country by not weight. It is almost a universal practice there. It seems a little difficult that, because apparently we want to let off from sale by net weight home-produced cheeses, such as Stilton or Blue Dorset, we have this situation in the Bill. I hope that the noble Earl will take due note of the general desire of the housewife—I think there is no doubt about this—that, it does not matter what the class of cheese is, if it is capable of being sold by net weight it ought to be sold by net weight. It is following general inquiry on this particular subject that this Amendment is being moved. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 63, line 26, leave out paragraph 2 and 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."—(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough.)

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has argued this Amendment very briefly, as he said be was going to, and he has introduced only one new point which was not answered last time, I think, to our satisfaction at least. He said that foreign cheeses are sold by weight in their own countries. I have asked for information on that point, but I have not been able to find any corroboration. Naturally, I am not saying by that that the noble Viscount is mistaken, but we have not been able to corroborate it. Even if it were true, I would put this point to the noble Viscount. Even if these cheeses are sold by weight in their own countries, I wonder whether it is by actual precise weight, by approximate weight or by weight when packed. What weight is in fact declared? The weight when it reaches the consumer would vary (it might possibly be considerably less) when sold within its own country as compared with its weight after making the journey to England; so that, when this cheese is sold in England, other factors are involved compared with when it is sold in the country of its origin. I was prepared to repeat the arguments which I used on the last occasion, but the noble Viscount has made it clear, I think, that he does not want to hear them all over again. We still think that it would be a mistake to accept this Amendment, and we cannot see our way to do so.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, may I remind the noble Lord of the figures which he gave during the Committee stage? In the case of Dutch cheese, which is going to be exempted from this Bill, Dutch cheese represents 20 per cent.—

LORD ST. OSWALD

No; I am sorry. If I suggested that, I was putting it very badly. What I said on that occasion was that the cheeses exempted represent 20 per cent. of cheeses sold.

LORD SHEPHERD

Very well, I will accept that. I think it stilt makes my case. Dutch cheese represents a very big proportion of the cheese imported into this country. Now we have the case that these imported cheeses will be treated with some preference over British cheeses. British cheeses, in the main, are of the Cheddar and Cheshire family. The Government require those now to be sold by net weight, not only over the counter but when they are pre-packed—and, as we know, pre-packed cheeses of the Cheddar and Cheshire family are increasing with the development of the multiple shops.

Why should British cheeses be treated differently from imported cheeses? That is what I cannot understand. The noble Lord said that he could not find any corroboration on the question of whether imported cheeses, particularly those in carton form, were marked with their net weight. I went round some grocery shops recently, and I was surprised. I did not find any cheeses (at least, among the well-known types of cheeses) which did not have the net weight clearly and prominently stamped. They are doing it not only because of the sale into this country, but because it is a requirement in their own countries of distribution. And yet the Government come here and say, "We are going to treat British cheeses differently from imported cheeses." I think that is quite wrong. We are not only interested now in the consumer: we are interested in the British manufacturer. We cannot see why he should be treated differently purely because some of the importers will have some difficulty in the matter. My Lords, I think this is again one of those matters of principle and of practice on which we should stand.

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, I yield nothing to the noble Lord in my patriotism for British cheeses, but to suggest that we are exempting foreign cheeses because they are foreign cheeses is not to state the case at all accurately. We are exempting certain cheeses because of their nature. They include such native cheeses as Stilton and Double Gloucester, and they include certain foreign cheeses; but it is because of their nature, their character as cheeses, that they are exempted, not because they come from any particular place. It may shock the noble Lord, in view of what he has said, to learn that most of the Cheddar and Cheshire cheese eaten in this country in fact comes from Canada or the United States.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, may I point out that the Milk Marketing Board have an enormous problem, from week to week, in how to get rid of such surpluses as remain in their hands; and that, as well as the production of cheese on the farms, there is a very large production in the Milk Marketing Board's factories in this country? It is rapidly growing, and the Government are apparently going to continue to impose upon them conditions which they are not willing to impose upon their competitors abroad.

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, I really cannot allow it to be suggested without a reply that we are, as the noble Viscount has again suggested, making an exception of foreign cheeses as such. We are making an exception of certain types of cheeses, some of which come from abroad. In the circumstances, I think I shall have to repeat part of the argument that I used on the last occasion, when I said that to cover all cheeses, some of which vary considerably in their density, even if cut from the same whole cheese, some of which may unpredictably lose a high proportion of their weight and some of which are packed in relatively heavy wrappings or boxes, would raise complications not only for the exotic Continental cheeses but for such home-bred products as Stilton and Double Gloucester. To conform to the requirements of this Schedule, either these cheeses would have to be marked by the packer with

their net weight 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; and in this case that would largely defeat the object so far as the consumer is concerned. I do not think that that argument is contradictable. 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, briefly, seems to the Government 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 and practicable.

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

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 16; Not-Contents, 45.

CONTENTS
Alexander of Hillsborough, V.	Latham, L.	Shepherd, L. [Teller.]
Amwell, L.	Lawson, L.	Silkin, L.
Attlee, E.	Listowel, E.	Stonham, L. [Teller.]
Auckland, L.	Pethick-Lawrence, L.	Taylor, L.
Chorley, L.	Shackleton, L.	Williams, L.
Crook, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Ailwyn, L.	Forbes, L.	Newall, L.
Ampthill, L.	Fortescue, E.	Newton, L. [Teller.]
Atholl, D.	Furness, V.	Raglan, L.
Bathurst. E.	Goschen, V.	Rathcavan, L.
Buckinghamshire, E.	Gosford, E.	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Carrick, E.	Hastings, L.	St. Oswald, L.
Chesham, L.	Hawke, L.	Sinclair of Cleeve, L.
Clitheroe, L.	Howard of Glossop, L.	Somers, L.
Coleraine, L.	Jessel, L.	Spens, L.
Colville of Culross, V.	Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor)	Tenby, V.
Conesford, L.	Long, V.	Teviot, L.
Davidson, V.	Luke, L.	Torrington, V.
Derwent, L.	McCorquodale of Newton, L.	Tweedsmuir, L.
Dundee, E.	Milverton, L.	Waleran, L.
Ebbisham, L.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.	Wolverton, L.
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Fifth Schedule (continued):

PART V

Milk

2. Milk which is not pre-packed shall be sold only by capacity measurement or by net weight:

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

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:

LORD HAWKE moved, in paragraph 2, to add to the proviso: , or milk pre-packed for sale in a vending machine.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in various places in this Bill specific weights are prescribed by 'which certain categories of goods have to be sold, the main purpose being to guard against any 'misrepresentation and to provide a clear step from one size of container to the next about which the consumer cannot be deluded. But when one comes to the question of selling things in vending machines, one wants to make quite certain that the Bill is reasonably flexible, because a vending machine is inflexible in that it will take only one or two varieties of coin. Therefore, the size of the commodity in the vending machine has to be adapted to the size of the coin which it will take.

Milk is beginning to be sold in these machines now at places like railway stations, and, in some cases, after the cafés and bars are closed the vending machines are the only method by which late-night traveller can get hold of a snack. I think it is a good idea, both from the dairy trade and the health angle, that milk should be available from these vending machines. Though I speak with my noble friend Lord Teviot in front of me, who I daresay would take a diametrically opposite view, nevertheless I assure him that milk is very often, at that hour of night, the only available commodity, the bars having closed.

At the moment, the situation is that, by a coincidence, coin and quantity are well suited to each other. Milk retails at 8d. per pint, and half a pint, put up in a carton, with the various expenses of packing comes just about right for 6d. But we are legislating for the future. Farmers are already saying that the price of milk is too low, and who knows what the price is likely to be in the years to come? If we do not have flexibility, we may get to the stage When, in order to make it a practical proposition to put milk in vending machines, either the machine has to make too much profit or has to give too much milk. The object of my Amendment is to make it possible in future for milk to be put up in such quantities as may be required to be adapted to the coin normally taken by vending machines. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 64, line 33, at end insert (", or milk pre-packed for sale in a vending machine")—(Lord Hawke.)

LORD TEVIOT

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether during the processing of milk for sale through vending machines, the milk itself is exposed?

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, the milk is sealed up at the processing factory in an air-tight waxed carton. There may be other forms of packing in the future, such as polythene bags, but that. is the normal packing at the moment.

LORD FORBES

My Lords, I entirely agree with the argument put forward by my noble friend. Milk-vending machines have contributed a considerable amount to the sales of liquid milk and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will look at this Amendment very carefully.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, my noble friends Lord Hawke and Lord Forbes are evidently anxious to allow the greatest possible latitude to people who pre-pack milk for sale in vending machines, and the Amendment proposes to exempt such transactions from the requirements in paragraph (3) that the container must not only be marked with the quantity but must also hold only one-third or one-half of a pint or multiples of half a pint. The Government are certainly anxious not to discourage this extremely convenient method of sale, which, as my noble friend Lord Forbes has said, is rapidly growing. We cannot go the whole way with the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Hawke. At the very least, we would take the view that pre-packs sold from vending machines should be marked with the quantity, even though they did not have to be sold in specified quantities, so that the purchaser would be able to see the quantity he was getting and be able to judge the true cost as between buying from a machine and buying from a shop.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, would the noble Earl help me with this point? Ought not the quantity to be stated on the machine? Because obviously it is too late, once you have put your coin in the slot, to find the quantity marked on the carton itself. If the purchaser is going to judge whether it is better to buy milk from a machine or from a shop, he must see what he is going to get for his 6d. or 8d.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I have no doubt that that could be arranged. The difficulty is that my noble friend thinks that in certain circumstances not only the marking of quantities but the requirement that the contents of these packages should fit specified quantities may restrict the increase of this method of sale, which is a useful one. I think that I should be willing to agree that it might do so in certain circumstances. As my noble friend said, at the present moment the permitted size of a package of milk happens to coincide with a convenient number of pennies, a round 6d. worth. But, of course, the price could rise at some time in the future. If that happened, the Government would certainly be prepared to consider whether the obligation to pack in specified quantities only ought to be waived in respect of this method of sale. That could be done by order under Clause 22, in order to maintain this facility for the sale of milk at prices which suit our units of currency. We should certainly have that consideration in mind when the Bill comes into force in two years' time.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, would the noble Earl deal with my noble friend's point about where the marking should be? If the container is going to be marked, it is important that the consumer should know before making a purchase. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, suggested that milk may even be in a plastic container. The only objection I have to the excellent milk-vending machines on our stations is the strong taste of cardboard, and I should like to see a plastic container, so that we could drink milk in much the same way as Spaniards drink wine, which is both nourishing and amusing. But there is the difficulty of marking plastic containers. It would be much better to consider marking outside the machine.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, all we do in the Bill is to prescribe two things: that the container must be marked with quantity and sold in specified quantities. I have explained that in certain circumstances we should be glad to reconsider these requirements, but we do not wish to put in the Bill the precise methods by which they shall be enforced. That is a matter to be decided by those who are to be responsible for enforcing them.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I think your Lordships' House ought to understand exactly what it is doing. From the noble Earl's reply, I am not quite clear about whether he is accepting the Amendment or not.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I honestly think that I made myself perfectly plain. I cannot at present accept this Amendment. I gave one reason for not accepting it at all—namely, that we think that, whatever is done, the container should be marked with the quantity of milk, whether the quantity must be one-third or one-half of a pint. We may allow any quantity we like, but it must be put down on the container, to enable the purchaser to compare it with a similar quantity that he can get from a shop. That is an entirely separate question from laying down what quantity should be in the carton. At present it is very convenient that the economic price of half a pint of milk from these vending machines coincides with 6d., but there may be difficulty if there is a rise in the price of milk, when, for example, the economic price might be 7d. I acknowledge the force of that possibility, but it is a hypothetical question.

LORD FORBES

My Lords, surely it is almost a certainty?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I do not want to anticipate the Annual Price Review. I should get into all sorts of trouble if I did that.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, we are all much in favour of developing new sources of distribution of milk which may be likely to put up the total consumption, and I am sure that dairymen of all kinds, as well as restaurant keepers and station bar directors, have their eyes upon the vending machine. I think that it is essential, in using these machines, for the consumer to have an exact knowledge of what quantity is being supplied. I did not follow why the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, should move this Amendment in the particular place of insertion and thus get the exemption altogether. I hope the noble Earl will stick to his general view that you have to let the consumers know what they are going to get for their money when they go to the machine. On that understanding, from the last statement, which I heard more clearly than the other, I should be content.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his explanation, but, if he does not mind my saying so, I thought it was a terribly laboured one, and he did not seem to have his heart in it. I put down the Amendment only to discuss the general principle. Frankly, I had not considered the pros and cons of whether or not the quantity should be exactly marked. But I would remind your Lordships that marking quantity can cut both ways, particularly if some order specifies that it must be in a multiple of an ounce. The consumer would be most likely to get the ounce below rather than the ounce above. When it is almost certain that the price of milk is likely to go up in the next few years, I thought it was making rather heavy weather of the Amendment to say, "We will not do it in the Bill now, though we probably ought to, but we will leave it for an order later on". Frankly. I do not see the objective in that; I should have thought that it was a waste of time and energy. However, this is the first time that this matter has been put before my noble friend. I hope he will have another look at it and that he may be able to change his attitude somewhat when the Bill goes to another place, because I feel that his colleagues will need something of the sort there. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.2 p.m.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH moved, in paragraph 3 (a), to leave out "one-third of a pint". The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in the case of the debate on this particular matter in the Committee stage consideration of the Bill I think I spread myself a little in what 2 thought was a well-considered argument. I have re-read since then the statement made in reply by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. I thought it quite likely that when the detailed arguments I put forward on the bare economic facts—costs and margins of the distributive industry, and their effect upon the productive industry—were studied, some other decision might have been made than apparently is the case; because my colleagues who saw the noble Earl during the Recess tell me that in any event he is not going to accept this Amendment. That is rejecting the view both of the milk distributive trade and also of the National Farmers' Union. It is done only, I think, upon the plea that the Milk Marketing Board feel, contrary to the other parts of the trade and their own 'members of the National Farmers' Union, that this statutory sanction to sell in one-third-pint bottles might be a possible method of selling more milk.

I am sure your Lordships do not want me to repeat all the details of the economics of this proposition. But I beg you, before we come to Third Reading, if you have not done so since the Committee stage, to read again the facts about the distributive side of this business. There can be no shadow of doubt that in the end, if this provision for one-third of a pint bottle is insisted upon for the first time in the history of delivering milk, it will add to the price to the consumer. Indeed, the present situation of the distributive trade is that it will be bound to ask for more money soon.

It must be remembered that the distributive trade is under direct Government price control, through the annual review of their margins, just as much as the farmer is under control through the Annual Review of farm prices. The situation at the moment is that the Farmers' Union have just met and indicated their fury about the steadily declining income of the milk producer upon the farm, and are making representations. At the same time, there is no difference in the margin of 2d. per gallon which is allowed under Government review to the milk distributors. That is a lower margin of turnover percentage of profit than almost any other business in the country could possibly manage; and, of couse, it is because of the universality of the desire to drink milk on the part of so many millions of our people: it could not be done in any other way.

If the Government bring in this completely new provision, then they are going to ask for a kind of competition in this matter which is quite unnecessary. The noble Earl said twice in his speech on the last occasion: "Of course this is all right. Even if you put this in the Bill and make it statutory, no distributor of milk in the country is bound thereby to fill third-pint bottles or to sell third-pint bottles." But you never know what will be the subject of competition in this matter. It is just like selling what we call a "lost leader" in a grocer's shop to attract trade and to get higher prices for other articles being sold. We may have that same kind of thing cropping up. That ought not necessarily to be something the Government want in connection with this matter—and I hope they do not—because in the case where they have to try to maintain the production of milk and have a proper supply and controlled finance, and where they are themselves controlling the margin of profit and price in the distributive industry, they ought to have stable conditions in the industry.

I put the case fully last time and I am not going to repeat it; and I may say that I have consulted my noble friend Lord Spens, who feels, with me, that if the Government have made up their minds not to accept this, then it is not much use putting the argument again. Last time we thought they were going to have a look at it. The look they had was not very successful. On this occasion, whatever numbers we have with us, I shall be bound to call a Division upon this Amendment. I beg to move.

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

LORD SPENS

My Lords, I do not propose for one moment to repeat the speech that I made on this matter on the Committee stage, but I endorse everything which the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has said. The insertion of this one-third of a pint measure in this Bill is something new and is opposed by the whole of the trade, from the producer down to every distributor. It is perfectly true, as the noble Earl said on the last occasion, that this is only optional; no distributor, if he does not wish, need start pre-packing milk in one-third pint measures. But it is absolutely certain, in my view, that if this provision is put in the Bill some distributor will in fact start, and in the matter of a few months competition will make it essential for all distributors to put on sale one-third pints of milk. The result of that is equally certain, in my view: that, in fact, a large number of persons who buy and consume half-pints of milk to-day will buy and consume only one-third pints.

It seems to me absurd that, at a time when we have been spending vast sums of money in encouraging the people of this country to improve their milk—we have the finest herds in the world; we have increased the consumption of fresh milk in this country; we are spending thousands every year to persuade people to drink more milk—there should then be put in the hands of some scheming distributor the right to start selling in smaller quantities, which must inevitably attract a certain number of consumers. It seems to me certain that within a matter of years, possibly even months, the total consumption of milk in this country is bound to go down, and that everybody, from the producers upwards, will suffer in consequence, as will also the health of the people. Why, when the whole industry is against anything of this sort being brought in, the Government should insist on doing it, really passes my comprehension altogether. I am sure it is a retrograde measure which we shall all be greatly regretting within a matter of months or years. Therefore I certainly will feel unable to support the Government if the Bill remains in this form.

LORD AUCKLAND

My Lords, I, too, feel that this Amendment is a wise one.

The economics of it are obvious. The pre-packing of milk must be done very carefully in the interests of hygiene and it cannot be done cheaply. To pre-pack one-third of a pint of milk would not be an economic proposition, either to the seller or to the consumer. Bearing in mind that children are the largest consumers of milk, hygiene is essential. I yield to no one in my support for the drinking of milk. Whether or not the pre-packing of milk itself is as hygienic as it might be is another matter. Certainly I do not think anything can be gained in allowing this proposal for pre-packing milk in such a small quantity to go through. For one thing, there is little refreshment to be gained from such a small quantity and, as has been stressed, economically it does not make sense. I entirely agree with the noble Viscount opposite on this Amendment.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, might I ask one question of the dairy experts? Am I right in thinking that at the moment you can pre-pack milk in any quantity you like, but that in fact only half-pint and pint containers are used? Secondly, I should like to say that I cannot see why people like myself, who hate milk but have to buy some because occasionally one has people to dinner who are sufficiently unwise to like milk in their coffee (and I think it is occasionally necessary for milk to be used in cooking) should be made to buy half a pint. I have not tried to tell my dairy to deliver one fluid ounce per day, but I rather suspect that they would refuse to do it. I hope the Government will stick to their guns and have one-third of a pint, and I only wish that it had been one-quarter of a pint as well.

6.25 p.m.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, if I may say so, the noble Duke would be better off if the Government prohibited the sale of milk altogether. I should like to say a word on behalf of those people who, the noble Earl will concede, desire, above all, to sell more and more milk—that is, the farmers of this country who are represented by the National Farmers' Union. The noble Earl will recall that when we discussed this Amendment in Committee, he said that the National Farmers' Union had not yet decided anything very definite, and I gave him facts on that occasion which he accepted. I think the reason why he was not aware of the views of the National Farmers' Union was because they were made known to the Ministry of Agriculture, and the news had not yet spread. But they have since written, on January 3, putting their views much more clearly, and I would emphasise that the objection of the National Farmers' Union to one-third of a pint, except for educational establishments, is, first of all, that the cost of filling these small sizes is very heavy, partly because of the relatively high cost of the bottles themselves and, secondly, because of the slowing up of the "through-put"—a dreadful word, but an expressive one—through the dairy.

It seems to me that if milk producers, through their national organisation, want to avoid this particular size of container because it is going to cost the consumer more and because it is going to lead to a decrease in the consumption of milk, then we ought to pay particular regard to their views. It is all very well Ito have weights and measures legislation, but when you introduce a clause or a paragraph which will do great damage to an industry, it really is unthinkable that we should allow it to go on. After all the greatest ambition of the modest ones among us is that we should not do any harm, but in this case we shall do a great deal of harm. I would ask the noble Earl to have regard to the fact that the producers of milk are solidly, absolutely and completely opposed to the proposals; that he should have regard to them, and should have regard to the fact that if this Schedule goes through unaltered, not only are we going to sell less milk and make many farmers worse off, but the consumers will pay more for it, which will make them worse off, too.

LORD AMPTHILL

My Lords, noble Lords have made the case for the producers of milk quite clear, but there is, of course, the other side of the penny, and that is the consumer. I think there is a consumer demand for one-third of a pint of milk. Over twenty years ago I introduced the free issue of milk into a factory for which I was responsible. At that time there was no tea break, and no free issue. The milk was taken round to the people at their work, and they drank it through straws from a third-of-a-pint bottle. That practice still goes on to-day in a number of factories, but I am sorry to say that a number of people—and a large proportion of the employees are young women—prefer tea. I personally think that milk would be better for them. But if you gave them a half pint bottle of milk they would find it too much. Finally, I wish to repeat that I think there is a consumer demand for one-third pint bottles of milk. If it is an uneconomic proposition for the producers to pack it and issue it, then I think the answer is to find a third of a pint container which is an economic proposition. I cannot support this Amendment.

LORD GIFFORD

My Lords, I should like to support the Government in respect of this Amendment. It seems to me that there is a social side to this question. Old age pensioners and people with limited incomes should not be forced to buy a greater quantity than one-third of a pint if they do not wish to do so. I think I am right in saying that this is only a permissive clause. There is nothing in it to bind the producers to produce one-third of a pint if they do not wish to. If they find it uneconomical, there is no need for them to supply bottles containing one-third of a pint. Perhaps the noble Earl can enlighten me on that point.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I rise to say a few words to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, because he has spoken on behalf of the old-age pensioners. I am glad there is some sympathy on the other side of the House in this matter. What we are interested in is value for money. If you are distributing in an uneconomic way—and we believe the evidence which has been given to us that if we start distributing on a fairly large scale at one-third of a pint it will be uneconomic—it will mean that the customer who is buying milk admittedly will be gutting a smaller quantity but will be paying more for what she is buying than she is paying to-day. The whole point, so far as I can see, is that we want to do service to the customer, and we want to do service to the producer and the distributor; but surely we can give service to all those three parties only if we maintain a structure that makes it possible for this commodity to be distributed at the fairest price, both to the consumer and to the producer. If we accept what the Government are asking us to agree to, one-third of a pint of milk to be a legal measure, we shall, I think, be undermining the industry. I have no personal connections with the industry, but that is my information; that it will be undermining this important industry. And I do not think that if we do that it will be a service to the consumer or the producer.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, I am not sure that at any rate one or two of us in this House, including myself, are not in rather a muddle over this matter. The arguments of the noble Viscount opposite were based on the fact that there is a flat margin of 2d. per gallon on the distribution of milk in this country, out of which the retailers have to pay their costs and make their profit, in whatever size container they choose to use, whereas the arguments advanced by a good many noble Lords on this side seem to me to be based on the fact that presumably milk, like any other commodity, can have its charge varied according to the bulk of the package bought: in other words, the customer would pay more than one-third of the price of one pint when buying a one-third pint bottle. If that point could be cleared up by my noble friend we should be in a better position to pass judgment.

If the milk distribution trade has that flat charge to cover all distribution it can only mean that the margin on the other sizes has to be lower, and it will demand a larger distribution margin when it comes to the next review. On the other hand, if the consumer can be made to pay the proper price for the one-third pint, a higher price relatively—and it would be perfectly reasonable for him to do so, and in many cases it would pay him, because a great deal of the difference between one-third of a pint and a half-pint is often wasted—then the argument from this side should prevail. I should like to know what the wholesale margin position is.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, may I say that I was perfectly clear in what I said on Committee stage? There is an annual settlement between the Government and the trade, producers and distributors, as to the price paid to the producer on the farm and the price paid to the distributor. What told the House then is the absolute fact; that when all the costs of milk collection, first of all, from the farm, and milk treatment and milk bottling and milk distribution have been met, the net profit, before charging income tax, is 2d. per gallon. The usual retail price per gallon charged is about 5s. 4d., and on that there is a net profit, before tax, of 2d. Your Lordships can see the actual fineness of the margin to which the distributive trade is pinned down.

It is difficult enough now to make any separate profit on the sale of milk in half-pint bottles; in fact, large sections of the trade do not deliver half-pints in bottles at all. Many of the different retailers supply, especially to old-age pensioners and the like, a few special deliveries. But the cost of delivering one bottle of milk to-day represents a very substantial part of price actually charged. I told the Committee last time that on a big round it now costs, on average, 2½d. to deliver a loaf of bread to a house. It does not cost quite that amount for milk, but it is not very far short. Therefore, if you are going to incite a desire, as the noble Duke said, for people to go down and down in the quantity of milk they ask for, up and up will go the cost of delivery, apart from anything else with regard to the cost of filling the bottle and the like; and as a result of this, if it happens, there is bound to be an increase in cost. The noble Earl will probably say that retailers are not bound to do it; that they can please themselves. But I am bound to say that it does not help the farmer very much. He does not want his trade interfered with; he has been shockingly treated by the Government already. He had 4s. a gallon for his milk in December, 1951. His price last month was 3s. 4½d., and his costs are nearly double. He does not want any more blows from the Government.

LORD HAWKE

There is one point the noble Viscount has not answered. Will it be possible for the retailer to charge at a higher rate per pint on milk delivered in one-third pints than for milk delivered in half pints?

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH

I do not think that if they charge a higher price for the one-third pint it will be sufficient to make up for any possible loss on quantity sold, or will affect the cost of delivery. Of course there is a case for the schoolchildren. The only way in which I find that school-children's milk is delivered in one-third pint bottles is that it is catered for in the estimates of the public authority; it is done as a part of meeting the overheads. No profit is ever really made upon the delivery of school milk to schools. I think if you made any number of inquiries from traders concerned you would find that is so. On the other hand, if you compare what would be the economic cost of selling one-third pint bottles with the cost of selling the regular-size pint bottles, you will find you are better off buying a pint at a time than buying a smaller quantity.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

If I may interrupt the noble Viscount, did I understand him to say the farmer got 3s. 4d. a gallon, and that it now costs double to produce it?

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH

No. I said that in December, 1951, the price for tuberculin-tested milk to the farmer was 4s. a gallon. The price given for tuberculin-tested milk this last December is 3s. 4½d. in the English and Welsh market. In the meantime, his costs of producing milk have been affected because all his costs have risen. Wages have gone from 94s. to 169s. I can go on. The same is true of fuel and all kinds of things. That is what the producer is suffering from, the Annual Review by the Government. Do not give him another blow in this way.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has perfectly rightly exercised his right of reply on this Amendment. I think it is perhaps my duty to remind your Lordships that on Report stage, while the Mover of an Amendment is allowed by the Rules to speak twice, no one else is supposed to speak more than once on the same Amendment. In Committee, and again to-day, the noble Viscount made an extraordinarily interesting speech. I think he realised that I was not convinced by the arguments which he put forward. The reasons why I undertook to look at the matter again were, first, because the views of the National Farmers' Union had not been clearly formulated before the Committee stage and it seemed reasonable not to reject them in advance; and secondly, because of the extraordinary force and conviction with which the noble Viscount argued his case. Although I did not agree with it, I thought that in deference to him it was only right that I should undertake to look at this matter again.

The noble Viscount in moving the Amendment was brief. I will try to be the same, but although the noble Viscount has declared in advance that he must divide the House upon this Amendment, I think it would be discourteous if I were to cut down my reply to a sentence or two. I will try briefly to say a word about the arguments which the noble Viscount and others have put forward. I think there are three main points: first of all, that one-third of a pint may be an uneconomic proposition; next that it may cause the consumption of milk to decline, and thirdly, that it may not be satisfactory to the consumer. I thought that the noble Viscount's argument on Committee about the one-third of a pint being uneconomic was based on the reasonable mathematical fact that, while the price of a pint of milk is at present 8d., the price of one-third of a pint is 2½d., and 2½d. is less than one-third of 8d.; so it is obviously arguable that it is uneconomic.

Several of your Lordships have asked what can be done about this. I would reply to that that it would be most undesirable and unfair on other people if a non-agricultural Minister were to try to supply any prognostications or to give advice about what might be agreed on at the Annual Price Review. Some of your Lordships seemed to think it inevitable that the price of milk is going up anyhow. I have no comment to make on that. All I should like to say is that this is a Bill to protect the consumer. We think it will be to the convenience of the consumer that he may have the chance of buying milk in one-third pint containers instead of half-pint containers.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

To have one-third of a pint delivered to his door?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I say that some consumers may want only one-third of a pint delivered to their door. If they do not, well, They need not order it. The point I am trying to make to the noble Viscount is that if it is uneconomic there is no compulsion at all on the dairyman to supply it. With great respect, I must remind your Lordships that this argument loses none of its truth by repetition. I hate repeating things, but I am forced to do so by what has been said. This is not a Bill to compel milk to be sold in certain quantities; it is a Bill to limit the number of quantities in which milk may be sold. All we are doing here is to make a slight relaxation of the permitted limits in respect of half-pint and upwards—we are now allowing it to be sold in containers of one-third of a pint as well, if anybody desires to do it. If, in view of what happens in the Annual Price Review, it is still uneconomic, nobody need do it at all. Nobody is under any compulsion to sell it in one-third of a pint containers.

As for the inevitability of the price going up, some of your Lordships hold the view that for other reasons the price of milk might have to go up. I make no comment on that, but I do not see why it should go up because of the fact that we are allowing it to be sold in one-third pint bottles. It might be arguable that, in order to make the price of one-third pint bottles economic, it may have to go up to 3d. or whatever price you like. But that will not entail the price of other bottles of milk going up. All that would need to be done would be for the dairyman to charge an economic price for this particular quantity of one-third of a pint.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

Do I understand from that that we are prejudging the examination of the Accounts?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

That is the very thing that I am not trying to do. Surely the noble Viscount must agree that a Minister in the Government not being an agricultural Minister cannot start to make obiter dicta about milk prices. Whatever Government are in power, that would be an intolerable thing to do. I must again remind your Lordships that this is a Bill not to deal with agricultural prices but to give certain protection to the consumer by establishing certain rules under which the consumer may be supplied. I would not accept the contention that, because we are relaxing the present restriction as to the number of measures in which milk may be sold, that will of itself entail a general increase in the price of milk to the consumer.

As for the question whether this will lead to an increase as some people think, or to a decrease, as other people think, in the price of milk, of course until 25 years or so ago nobody had ever thought of selling milk in quantities of less than half a pint. It was only when the school milk scheme came in that the one-third of a pint was made legal for that purpose, because it was thought to be more suitable for children—that some children might not be able to drink as much as half a pint but would take the lesser amount. When dairymen who have school contracts—I think most of the larger dairymen have—are not using these bottles for school contracts, they use them for selling things like orange squash. If they find it convenient, they can do that. I do not think it would necessarily be uneconomic or inconvenient for them. That is a matter for themselves. This Bill is not meant to force dairymen to sell one-third of a pint of milk in bottles; it is a Bill to allow them to do so if they find it suits them.

I would just remind Your Lordships that there is no prima facie case— I do not accept the view of my noble friend Lord Spens— that this is certain, or even likely, to mean a reduction in the total

consumption of milk; I think it is more likely to result in an increase because, as some of your Lordships have pointed out, there are large numbers of potential consumers like old age pensioners, or like my noble friend the Duke of Atholl who finds it difficult to consume a large quantity of milk, who might want to consume smaller quantities than a half pint and who would prefer to buy nothing than to buy more than that. It is arguable that this provision will increase, and not decrease, the consumption of milk.

For those reasons, we cannot agree that we are bound to abandon this proposal because the National Farmers' Union, whose views we always respect, are against it. I repeat this is a Bill for consumers' protection. We think it will help consumers. If they do not want to order one-third of a pint they need not do so, and if dairymen do not want to supply one-third of a pint they need not do so. To my mind, it would be a roost extraordinary procedure if in a Bill the main purpose of which is to give protection to the consumer we were to refuse to allow consumers to buy one-third of a pint of milk, which they may want to do, without any element of compulsion at all.

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

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 13; Not-Contents, 39.

CONTENTS
Alexander of Hillsborough, V.	Latham, L.	Silkin, L.
Amwell, L.	Lawson, L.	Spens, L.
Attlee, E.	Shackleton, L.	Stonham, L. [Teller.]
Auckland, L.	Shepherd, L. [Teller.]	Taylor, L.
Crook, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Airedale, L.	Gosford, E.	Newall, L.
Ampthill, L.	Hastings, L.	Newton, L. [Teller.]
Atholl, D.	Hawke, L.	Ogmore, L.
Bathurst, E.	Howard of Glossop, L.	Perth, E.
Buckinghamshire, E.	Jessel, L.	Radnor, E.
Carrick, E.	Kilmuir, V. (L. Chanceillor.)	Rathcavan, L.
Chesham, L.	Long, V.	Rea, L.
Coleraine, L.	Luke, L.	St. Aldwvn, E. [Teller.]
Davidson, V.	McCorquodale of Newton, L.	St. Oswald, L.
Derwent, L.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.	Teviot, L.
Dundee, E.	Melchett, L.	Torrington, V.
Furness, V.	Merrivale, L.	Waleran, L.
Gifford, L.	Milne, L.	Wolverton, L.
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

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.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment consequential on my last Amendment to Clause 59. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 65, line 4, leave out ("in") and insert ("for the purposes of").—(The Earl of Dundee.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

6.58 p.m.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, neither this Amendment nor the one following was put down on the Committee stage. This is the first time your Lordships have seen them. The first Amendment is simply to enable an existing practice to continue—one which has always been satisfactory and up to now legal; but it would appear that under the Bill as it stands without my Amendment it will become illegal. When a man or woman wants draught beer or cider it is usual to ask for a pint or a half-pint, or for a glass. A glass contains less than a half-pint. In most parts of the country it is served in a measured glass containing 8 ounces, although I believe that there are parts of the North where it has some other measurement; but 8 ounces is not an imperial measure or part of an imperial measure, and if this Amendment is not accepted the usual method of serving in a glass would be illegal. So far as I can see there is no point in making it illegal. It has always been legal up to now, and perfectly satisfactory, and every customer knows what he or she is getting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 65, line 6, after ("container") insert ("or in a quantity less than a half-pint").—(Lord Derwent.)

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I hope the Government will accept this Amendment, which is very necessary unless they are going to impose a quite big change on current practice, and one for which I do not think any justification has been shown.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, as my noble friend has said, this is a new Amendment which has not been brought to your Lordships' attention until now. Within the range of quantities in which draught beer and cider may be sold, the measures in the Third Schedule are one quart, one pint (which is twenty fluid ounces), a half-pint (ten fluid ounces) and one-third of a pint (which is 6⅔ fluid ounces). It will be seen that these permissible measures are sufficiently well spaced out to avoid any real risk that a smaller quantity might be passed off as a larger quantity. If there is a demand for a quantity of less than half a pint, the one-third Dint quantity, listed in the Third Schedule to the Bill, can satisfy this demand without anybody being deceived, without any possibility of a fraud. But if the publicans are to be free to sell in any quantity below half a pint, then of course there is a possibility that a glass containing, say, eight or nine fluid ounces might be passed off as a glass containing half a pint. Sometimes beer drinkers will ask for a "small" beer when they mean half a pint. The publican could not be caught for short measure under Clause 25 if he took advantage of this customary, but vague, method of ordering beer and gave the customer less than half a pint.

It must he remembered that the existing law has required sales of draught beer and cider of half a pint or more to be in marked half-pints or one-pint measures, and all glasses have to be stamped and tested by inspectors. So the absence of a stamp on the glass is itself an indication under the present law that less than half a pint is being served. Moreover, the fact that glasses have to be stamped has inevitably led to some uniformity in their manufacture, so that most of the smaller glasses are distinguishable by their shape. Under the Bill this will no longer be the case. We shall no longer have the stamp on the glass, and the publican will be free to measure beer and cider through a measuring machine and to serve them in any sort of glass he wants. We may perhaps see many varieties of glasses of different shapes and sizes coming into use, which some people may think a good thing.

They may like more variety in the shape of the glasses they have. But it may mean that the instinctive identification which the beer drinker can at the moment make of the standardised stamped glass which is handed to him may not be possible in future; and therefore the risk of confusion and possibly of fraud as between eight or nine ounces and half a pint quantity will be all the greater.

For those reasons I hope that my noble friend will not press his Amendment. The Hodgson Committee recommended that sales of beer below half-pints should be standardised at one-third of a pint to avoid risk of confusion with the half-pint, and I think that that is fairly obvious sense. If there is a demand for smaller quantities than half a pint it seems sensible that a third of a pint should be made a legal measure in order that people may know exactly what they are getting and that they may not be getting a little less than they are being charged for.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, I think that my noble friend made out a better case than I expected him to. I do not want to press this matter at this particular moment.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

Cheer up! Go on!

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, I will certainly have another look at it. It did not seem that his case was too bad, and my next Amendment is so much more important that I should prefer now to ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I only want to comment here in regard to the Third Reading, on which an Amendment may be moved, and in regard to measurement on the glass, that I understand that the hotel industry and everybody else are looking for standardised glasses which they can get more cheaply by buying in quantity. I have never heard before the argument about trying to vary the sizes and varieties of glasses.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.4 p.m.

LORD DERWENT moved. in paragraph 2, after "only" to insert, "in a marked measure or". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment of the most vital importance to millions of our fellow citizens because it deals with froth on the top of a glass of beer. The Bill says at present that beer shall be served in exact measurements: that is virtually what the clauses say. As regards draught beer, this used to be possible, because draught beer and stout used to be made flat, liquid flat, with virtually no bubble. But in modern times an increasing amount of pressurised beer is sold; that is, beer with bubbles that rise to the top and form a head. The bubbles take anything from one to two minutes to reach the top, and the head may take anything up to two or three hours to disappear.

The Bill at the moment is asking whoever draws the beer to do something that is quite impossible: that is, to give an exact measurement. If you want to give an exact measurement of, say, a glass of draught stout with a head, you pour it out, wait about three hours till it gets flat, then see that you have given slightly less, fill it up again, wait for another two minutes while the bubbles rise, wait another two or three hours while the head goes down—and then the "pub" is shut. It is not possible; and the object of my Amendment is that the present practice should continue rather than that a barman should be asked to do something which he cannot do.

The present practice is that the customer orders a half-pint or a pint of pressurised draught beer or stout, the fizzy kind, and it has to be served in a container, a tankard, glass or whatever it may be, on which is shown the capacity of the container. What happens —and it is a perfectly practicable thing to do—is that the barman fills it up and passes it across the counter. The customer takes it. In some "pubs" he blows the top off; in some he just sticks his nose into it, and if there is too much froth he says, "'Ere, Bill! I wanted beer, not froth!" and it is re-drawn for him. That practice has worked for years. That is a thing a barman can do. He does not put on much froth or he gets it thrown back, but he must put on some. This Amendment provides that the barman or potman or landlord should be able to sell beer in a marked measure to the best of his ability and should not be asked to do something he cannot do: serve an exact measurement of frothy beer.

Amendment moved— Page 65, line 7, after ("only") insert ("in a marked measure or").—(Lord Derwent.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, this is a new Amendment which my noble friend has brought forward. I do not want to be too dogmatic about any proposition which my noble friend submits to me, especially when it is concerned with anything like "beaded bubbles winking at the brim." I should have thought that beer which takes two or three hours to go down must be beer of very remarkable quality; and certainly it is a long time to wait before you drink it.

LORD DERWENT

Stout.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I am always ready to learn, but I should have thought it was a long time to wait. It may be helpful, perhaps, to my noble friend if I begin by summarising the effect of the present law. Our present licensing legislation lays down that beer has to be sold in stamped measures. In England and Wales it has to be sold in quantities of half a pint, and in Scotland in quantities of a pint or more; and it is an offence under the Weights and Measures Act, 1926, to give short measure or to misrepresent the measure. So that under the present law any seller of draught beer would commit an offence if, when asked for a pint or half-pint, or when he purported to serve such a quantity, he in fact gave a lesser amount.

Now, my Lords, what difference is made by this Bill? The main effects of paragraph 2 of this Part of the Fifth Schedule, combined with the repeal of certain licensing enactments listed later on, are, first, that sales of a quantity less than the half pint can no longer be in odd amounts around eight or nine fluid ounces, which can easily be mistaken, if served in fancy, unmarked glasses, for the half pint, or ten fluid ounces. In future, the only quantity which will be permissible under the half pint will be the one-third pint. Secondly, it will no longer be necessary to sell beer in a stamped glass or tankard. This will incidentally mean that there will no longer be a distinction between Scotland and England and Wales in the extent to which stamped glasses are required by the law.

The object of relaxing the requirement to sell beer in stamped measures is to enable sellers to use the beer measuring dispensers now being developed without having also to serve the beer in glasses which have been individually tested and stamped by inspectors. The beer measuring dispenser would, of course, itself have to be stamped by an inspector, and the inspector would have to test it periodically to ensure it was functioning properly: but he would no longer have to test and stamp the glasses. My noble friend's Amendment would reintroduce the requirement to sell in stamped measures, but only as an alternative to selling in one of the specified quantities. At first sight, this might apparently leave it open to the publican to sell less than, say, a half pint, providing that he sold it in a stamped half pint measure. If this were the intention of my noble friend's Amendment, I think we should have to oppose it on the grounds that this would represent a substantial weakening of consumer protection. In practice, however, the Amendment is unlikely to have this effect, because, even where the customer does not ask for a specific quantity, the circumstances of the sale might make it likely that the publican would be purporting to sell a given imperial quantity, so that he could at least be charged under Clause 25 if he gave less than the quantity he said he was giving. If this is accepted, it seems to me the only effect of the present Amendment would be to repeat, but only as an alternative, the requirement contained in the wording of the Licensing Acts, and I do not think there would be any particular virtue in taking this course.

My noble friend has mentioned the possibility that inspectors will start measuring pressurised beers when they have gone flat. So far as this is concerned, I think I am right in assuring my noble friend that the position will be no different at all from what it has been in the past. The inspectors who are responsible for testing glasses know perfectly well that, for technical reasons, these glasses are made a bit over-size on average so that there is some room for part of the head on the beer to be below the brim without the liquid being short. They know, too, that the customer expects normally to start drinking the beer as soon as it is served, without waiting until it has gone flat. It is not the practice, and I do not quite know what my noble friend was thinking of when he suggested it, to wait two or three hours before you drink your beer. Surely, the normal practice is to drink the beer before the head goes down, even if it goes down much quicker than the period of two or three hours. I know there is a good deal of feeling in some places about the "collar" or "head" of a glass of beer. You sometimes get people asking for a tie to fit the collar: but I would suggest to my noble friend that, so far as pressurised beer is concerned, the risk of the publican rendering himself liable to prosecution will be no greater under the Bill than it is now.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I do not think the noble Earl was quite fair to the noble Lord who moved this Amendment.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I am sorry if I was unfair. I certainly had no intention of being unfair. I was trying my best to be as fair as I could.

LORD SHACKLETON

The noble Lord did not seriously suggest that anybody waited three hours. He merely said that you had to wait three hours in order to be certain of carrying out the requirements of this Bill, and that nobody in their senses would want to wait three hours. If I understand the noble Earl correctly on this matter (and it seems a fairly intricate one), this makes no difference to the legal position of the publican; but, as I understand it, if we do not amend the Bill the effect is that the publican will be in danger of prosecution, and will be in greater danger of prosecution; and I do not think it is good enough for us, in passing legislation, to say that we are in fact creating what is bound to be an offence but that nobody will take action on it. If that is so, then I would regard the present situation envisaged in the Bill as unsatisfactory.

Furthermore, the Minister spoke about beer-measuring dispensers. I do not know when he thinks they are going to come into action, or whether, with regard to the particular type of beer we are discussing, they are really going to be satisfactory. No doubt intensive research is going on in this field, but my information is that so far it has not been satisfactorily completed. I should certainly be in favour of leaving the law in such a way that it can be fulfilled, if these instruments can be satisfactorily developed and brought into use, but I do not think that the Amendment that the noble Lord has moved will, in fact, prevent that. This is merely to give scope of a kind that will enable publicans and others to avoid committing an offence which, under the Bill as we see it, they are now bound to have to commit; and I do not think we ought to allow legislation of that type to pass in this House.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, as for this red herring (if that is a suitable term for dispensers), the fact is that they have not suitable ones available for certain types of beer; and where they are available, people will not use them. I know they are in use, but whether they are satisfactory or not I do not know. Some people say "Yes" and some people say "No", but it has nothing to do with this question. I dispute the argument that when a publican draws draught beer at the present time, if he fills a marked tanker to the best of his ability and it is not exactly full, he is in fact breaking the law, and would be technically then. I do not believe that to be the case. What I do know is that if this Bill passes as it is, whether a publican, or whoever is drawing the beer, is prosecuted or whether he is not, his act in drawing draught pressurised beer is bound to be illegal, because he cannot measure it. My Lords, I am not satisfied with the answer, which I consider to be entirely a Departmental answer, and I am not going to accept it.

LORD CROOK

My Lords, I am afraid that some of us who have been listening are becoming a little confused. What is this revolution which is about to take place with beer? I do not know where these containers are going to be found. Are we being told that beer is now to be in these containers and that all the present pumps are being replaced? Are we being told that the good old English beer which is now drawn merely by the turning of a tap in the barrel is not going to continue; that beer from the wood is to go? Is this contained in the Bill?

7.20 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, it is obvious that my noble friend is still very worried about this matter, and does not accept that the reasons I have given against the Amendment are convincing ones. Perhaps he might change his view if he were to look at the matter again. As it is a new Amendment, I should be glad to discuss the matter further with my noble friend before the next stage of the Bill, or before the Bill reaches another place, because we are all trying to improve the Bill and be fair to everybody, and I think it is important that we should do our best to examine where the truth lies. If my noble friend would be willing to take that course, I should be very glad to do what I could, either to satisfy him, or to pursue further the representations which he or his associates might wish to make.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, my noble friend puts me in an extremely awkward position, because on the Committee stage every Amendment I put down which my noble friend said he would have another look at came in as a Government Amendment at the next stage. I got everything I asked for. This is, of course, the first time that that has been done. In view of what my noble friend has said, I am sorry to disappoint certain noble Lords, but as my noble friend is going to look at the matter again and discuss it, and I shall still have a chance to put the Amendment down, although I may not have to—I am always an optimist—I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I know that some of your Lordships are anxious that we should not sit much longer. It is not yet half-past seven, but it has been suggested to me by some of your Lordships that this might be a convenient moment to move that consideration of the Bill be now postponed. I think there is a reasonable chance of our being able to conclude the Report stage on Thursday, and as I understand noble Lords opposite, as well as noble Lords on this side of the House, they are anxious to co-operate in that laudable objective. I think it might be to everybody's convenience if we were to postpone consideration of the Bill now.

Moved, That consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.—(The Earl of Dundee.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.