HL Deb 24 October 1967 vol 285 cc1625-42

7.30 p.m.

BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider their decision not to include grading of fruit and vegetables at the retail end, in view of the necessity of such grading for the shopper. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Question I wish to raise to-night is one that I have been trying to get on in this House for some considerable time. I am asking the Government to reconsider their decision not to make grading of fruit and vegetables essential at the retail end.

I should like first of all to say something about my noble friend Lady Phillips, who is to reply to this debate. I have no wish to embarrass the noble Lady, but I must say that on this matter I would have expected to find her up here with me, rather than on the Front Bench. In fact I am wondering if she is intended to be the Government's "secret weapon", because they know of the regard and the affection in which I hold her. However, having said that, as she is speaking from the Front Bench I am afraid that she will just have to "take it."

I should have thought that a debate such as this was completely unnecessary. It must be obvious to everyone how much the shopper stands to gain by the grading of fruit and vegetables at the retail end. I have never been able to understand why Government of either Party has such an objection to doing this. What I have for a long time been trying to find out, unsuccessfully, is where does the opposition come from. As long ago as 1950 in another place I embarked on this journey, and I still have not reached the end— unless the noble Baroness is able to help me to-night. Nothing will convince me that if the Government of the day wish to benefit the shopper by insisting on retail grading of fruit and vegetables. this could not be done—otherwise what is the point of being a Minister? But always, whenever this matter has been raised, in either House, with either Party as Government, the attitude of whichever Minister has had to reply has been the same.

It may be a case of stonewalling which has nothing to add to the argument. It may be an obvious lack of knowledge of what happens when people go shopping—and the noble Lady at least will not be able to stand up without knowledge of what happens when people go shopping. Or it may be an implication—and this I am afraid happens very often with male Ministers—"Here we have women complaining once again, and the matter is not so serious, so let us write it off with some empty compliments about how able they are and what good shoppers they are"—though obviously my noble friend would not be guilty of that. Perhaps I might say, in passing, that when we women cease to get this type of silly compliment we shall probably really have arrived. But it will be a long time before we reach that stage.

As matters stand at present, growers will label their produce, Government inspectors will inspect it, and taxpayers will pay for it; but shoppers will be unable to select by it. My noble friend Lord Walston, on February 10 of this year actually pointed out to the House (and I quote from column 1558 of the OFFICIAL REPORT) that: the retail shopper—the housewife—shopping for fruit has the opportunity of seeing the fruit before she buys it and therefore to that extent is able to do her own grading, whereas the wholesaler buying the fruit has to buy it in crates, or whatever form it may be, and therefore has to rely on a suitable form of grading. A week later, on February 16, we really only moved on to a reiteration of this; that since the housewife shopping for fresh fruit and vegetables can see what she is buying, and can make her own judgment of quality in relation to price, there is not the same need to introduce grading at the retail level; that in effect the housewife acts as her own grader and inspector.

I told my noble friend Lord Walston that I should be saying this about him to-night. I always looked upon the noble Lord as a progressive, and I look upon my noble friend Lady Phillips as a progressive; but we shoppers would have thought that anybody, even a Minister given the unenviable task of defending such a policy, would have known that, while housewives or anybody else can see produce in the shops or on the stalls, there is certainly no guarantee that the produce they get is what they have seen at the front or on the top of the pile. I need not repeat that to the noble Lady. In the Sunday Express on May 7 last I noted a headline which said, "Why the superior tomatoes were not for the customers". Underneath was a short letter, on which the name and address of the sender appeared, with these words: My wife saw some poor looking tomatoes on display inside a shop. Beside them, in a basket, were much better ones. On asking if she could have a pound from the basket the answer my wife received from an embarrassed assistant was 'Sorry, madam, no. They are for putting in the window.'

My Lords, I do not believe that anybody would deny the justice of the case I am making—certainly no shopper would. What I find difficult to understand is the attitude of the present Government. I think the present Government, however much of a nuisance they may consider me, will agree that it is not for want of trying that I have not got anywhere. Private discussions have been no more fruitful than public ones. We all know that sometimes quite a lot can be accomplished by private discussions, but even, as I gather my noble friend must be aware, for she must have been told, when I did try to be helpful in appreciating the reasons why the Government felt that grading was not possible at present I got nowhere. I asked only whether we could be given a declaration of intent that grading of fruit and vegetables at the retail level would be introduced eventually. I simply wanted the Government to imply that this would become Government policy, so that discussions could begin in advance on methods and timing. And the answer, even to that was, "No." Obviously, the Government are not prepared to help the shopper in this way; no other deduction is possible.

I hope that when my noble friend comes to reply to-day we shall not be given a detailed analysis as to why the present statutory grades could not be applied to small quantities and single units. We all know in this House that reasons can always be found for saying, "No." What I raise to-day is the principle of retail grading and we should like to know from my noble friend, if she is to disappoint us, why the Government will not have it. Ways can be found to overcome difficulties, if the will is there.

Let us take as an example Marks and Spencer. I imagine that everybody, not least the Prime Minister, agrees that they offer a consistent standard of quality for their produce. When arguing this behind the scenes I have been told that this firm is offering a special service involving repeated checks on produce up to the point that it is actually handed to the shopper. and that this service costs money. Of course it does: that is obvious.

But then, behind the scenes, the argument goes on to confront me with something that I never said. And we all know that when one is confronted in an argument with something one has never even mentioned, the case of the person concerned is very weak; in other words, you do not attempt to answer a question you cannot answer: you answer something else. I was told that it was not true that all shoppers were prepared to pay the significantly higher prices that must be demanded when grading is carried to these lengths. But I never said that all shoppers were so prepared—I would not be so stupid. What I did say, and what I repeat now, is that people shopping at Marks and Spencer were willing to pay more for what they knew was good quality. I have no wish to be rude, but such an argument is fatuous. What about merchandise in the shops quite apart from food? Do we not have grades of quality by price? By and large, you get what you pay for, and if you can afford it, if you have the actual cash to spend, usually the better quality is the best buy, and indeed the cheapest one.

What it seems impossible to get over to Government spokesmen, is the simple fact that in some shops grades of fruit and vegetables are mixed, and that the customer often pays top price for what is not top quality, as is not the case at Marks and Spencer. Furthermore, we shoppers just do not accept the proposition of this Government that was given me in the Lords on February 16 last, that the best way to deal with this is to have an argument in the shop.

I should like to spell this out to the noble Baroness, because I want her to have a realistic job in replying to this. Marks and Spencer are successful in selling high-quality graded fruit and vegetables, and they are successful because produce is sold at its best and is given a limited shelf life. The housewife knows this, and she is willing to pay more for what she knows is good quality. I do not need to tell the noble Baroness or anybody else in this House that tomatoes have been graded for years, but growers have becomedisheartened at local wholesalers and retailers mixing their carefully graded fruit with others. This is why the housewife has selected the Dutch and the Guernsey tomatoes which are still in their boxes and have not been mixed. Marks and Spencer take the best end, but there is plenty of sale for the other in hotels or canteens, or schools or factories; and, of course, the careful selection of seed and the improved methods of husbandry or harvesting mean that less and less of the lower grade is produced.

We hear a lot about education of us shoppers, and I am all for that. I believe that if details were given of grades, shoppers would check. I believe that the logical place for inspection is the shop, and that if the retailer had to label his produce the shopper would soon get to know how good better grades were and those which she preferred.

The Government, of course, approve of Marks and Spencer. As I think we all know, they seconded four of their purchasing officers to Marks and Spencer for six weeks in a plan to improve State buying methods. I understand that the Government team included one official from the Ministry of Defence, one from the Stationery Office and two from the Ministry of Technology. I noted that the Treasury, in announcing the secondment, described Marks and Spencer as a firm which is known to have developed successful methods in co-operation with its suppliers to improve their efficiency". What I should like to ask is this: Why could such secondment not be extended to include the grading of fruit and vegetables at the retail end, which is obviously so successful financially at Marks and Spencer?

But, wanting to be really helpful, if it is not to be Marks and Spencer, then why not secondment to the Geest Brothers, who have been among the pioneers of quality control and prepacking of vegetables? Probably my noble friend knows that, as a result of this, something like 15 per cent. of that group's fruit and vegetable turnover is now in a prepacked form for customers like Marks and Spencer, David Greig or Sainsbury.

I do not know how many Members of your Lordships' House noted an article in the Observer on October 1 last, which brings us very close to this debate, which spoke of the tremendous flair of the Geest Brothers, stating that they had been successful largely because they had spotted that the fruit and vegetable industry was ripe for rationalisation. Indeed, the Observer went on to say they have done for fruit and vegetables what Tesco's Jack Cohen did for retailing. I am not treading on that dangerous ground, and I leave the retail trade to comment. But the point I wish to make is that the Geest Brothers saw that distribution and transport in their industry needed attention. Quite honestly, they thought it was in a mess. As they did not control this aspect they felt that they could not give the service that can be provided only with reliability. To them the answer was simple: they set up their own distribution and transport network.

On May 8 of this year the Commonwealth Secretariat published its latest review of the world fruit economy. In this it described the progress of the European Economic Community towards establishing a common market for fruit and vegetables, the common standards of quality and the progressive application of these standards to intra- and extra-Community trade. Are we going to stay outside whether we enter the Community or not, or—I would say to the noble Baroness and to the Government—is it just going to be all right for our wholesalers, and mean quite simply that our shoppers will not get the best unless they buy imported produce or shop at Marks and Spencer?

I do not know whether the noble Baroness saw the Consumer Affairs Bulletin of the International Co-operative Alliance for this month of October, which said that since March, 1967, legislation in Common Market countries has required the grading of certain fruits and vegetables not only by wholesalers but also in the shop and market place. Apples, pears, oranges, lemons, grapes, cauliflowers and tomatoes are affected: and the regulations will apply later to most market garden and orchard produce.

Only this month I spoke at a national conference on the growing of horticultural produce, held by the Joint Consultative Council of the Fresh Fruit, Vegetables and Flower Industries. I think a good time was had by all. Naturally, some of the people present did not agree with grading at all, and to them I was obviously a worse menace than the Minister himself. But there were some there who believed that something should be done for the shopper at the retail end and felt that the Minister had not gone far enough, although cost and inspection were visualised as problems.

I know there is a strong feeling among some vegetable growers that grading does not pay. By this they mean that on balance the extra money gained for graded produce does not usually compensate for the extra trouble and cost incurred. Why then are Marks and Spencer so successful in selling high-quality graded fruit and vegetables at prices that are not cheap? In essence, this is what this argument is about to-day, and the answer is: because the grading of the produce is carried through to the shopper, who is consistently offered value for money. This is of the utmost importance.

I agree that there is only one way for the grower to get a higher return, and that is if the shopper is prepared to pay high prices for good produce. I maintain that Marks and Spencer and their suppliers have shown that shoppers are prepared to do this, but only for consistently good produce marketed at its best. I maintain, also, that the Marks and Spencer prices for fruit and vegetables are remarkably stable, usually ignoring minor fluctuations caused by gluts or shortages, and I suggest to the Government that here is the start of price stability in a market where it has been claimed that this is impossible. For many of these points about growers I am indebted particularly to an article by Mr. E. B. Watson in The Grower of June 4, 1966.

I have finished, my Lords. At this conference which I have just mentioned I was given a very straightforward subject—what the housewife expects from the horticultural industry. I took it upon myself to say that shoppers—which is a term I prefer to "housewives"; it is not only the women who go shopping—expected the industry to see: first, that they had graded produce, obviously with graded prices; secondly, that they got value for whatever price they paid; thirdly, that the quality should be what it was supposed to be; and fourthly that they expected the horticultural industry to join with shoppers in bringing pressure to bear on any Government and any relevant Ministry that was not prepared to bring this about. We want value for money, and that is what the debate is about to-day.

7.50 p.m.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

My Lords, I rise to support very strongly the brilliant speech which has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, for whom I have the very highest admiration and whose expertise in this subject is, I think, something which no one else has. I cannot say that I have spent anything approaching the number of years, not to say hours and days, which she has in the course of her life, fighting for shoppers, and especially for this particular subject, the grading of fruit and vegetables. Nevertheless, I can speak this evening as representing the shoppers, in so far as your Lordships know that I am still the Chairman of the Consumer Council, and it is in that capacity that I am taking part in this debate to-day.

In other debates on agricultural subjects I always speak as a grower, a producer, but this time that is not so. I am speaking to-day for the shopper, just as the noble Baroness who has just sat down has also been speaking for the shopper. She has produced facts and figures which I find fascinating to hear, and which I have had given to me in one form or another, but not so clearly put as she has put them herself to-night. I congratulate her most heartily on the case she has put, which seems to me almost unanswerable.

I also know from my association with the noble Baroness who is going to reply that she, too, is a tremendous expert on shopping. She has done a tremendous amount for shoppers, so I can see that she has an extremely difficult job to-night in replying to all of us who are standing up for the shoppers on a wicket on which she herself, I have a fancy, does not like to bat very much. Anyway, I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, in all that she has said. As I say, I speak to-night for the shopper, the consumer. I am entirely in favour of the shopper having every opportunity to buy the best quality that she can; or, if she does not want to buy that quality, that she should be able to buy the next best quality. But she should know what quality she is buying, and, as the noble Baroness has said, she is prepared to pay for.

I have a vivid recollection of seeing, some years ago, a friend of mine who was a great producer of apples sending off to the market at Covent Garden marvellously packed and graded cases and cases of apples. These were all going to the wholesale market, and would be bought, of course, by retailers. But then, when I went to buy apples from a retailer all I saw were little piles of apples marked either "Cox's", "Newton Pippins" or "Red Mackintosh", and so on, but with absolutely no indication as to how they had come there, whether they were grade 1, 2 or 3, or what they were. I was charged what was no doubt just the ordinary price for apples, but I could not at any point have said what the grade of those apples was, although I knew perfectly well that when they came from the grower they were graded and put into boxes on which the grades were clearly marked.

There is another product which we all know can be graded, and of which we can choose to buy one or other quality, and that is the egg. Eggs are graded; you can buy quality eggs or non-quality eggs, and you know perfectly well what you are doing. There is no trouble at all about that. They go into the retail market graded, and you buy them in that same way. Why not apples or pears, or, as the noble Baroness has said, other soft fruits or vegetables? I know that they are perishable; I know that they have to be bought fairly rapidly: but there is a very quick turnover in perishable foodstuffs. The noble Baroness has quoted the sales of fresh fruit and vegetables by Marks and Spencer, and the fact that, to use the technical term, "shelf life" is a short one shows that this can be done by enterprise and by skilful organisation.

I had not realised, until the noble Baroness said so, that the so-called experts which the Government had sent to learn about grading and retail distribution did not include one single person from the Ministry of Agriculture. It seems to me that if they were going to send somebody from the Stationery Office or somebody from the Ministry of Technology, surely they should have sent somebody from the Ministry of Agriculture.

I have in my hand a perfectly delightful little pamphlet, brought out by the Government, called, The Statutory Grading of Horticultural Produce. It is beautifully done, and attractive to look at. Here I read in this pamphlet that sales exempt from grading requirements are: (1) sale by retail; (2) sale for export". Imagine our trying to get into the Common Market, my Lords, with a hotchpotch of exports of vegetables or fruit ungraded! Then: (3) sales for processing". One might argue that it is not necessary, if you have processing fruit or vegetables, to grade them, although I have always been told by the people who can vegetables and fruit that they like to can the very best quality because it keeps better and provides a better sales point.

The same pamphlet goes on: (4) a direct sale by the producer to a person who undertakes to grade and label the produce before reselling". That shows, anyway, that they are prepared to admit that the shopper should have the opportunity of a graded product from someone who has the enterprise to grade before reselling. The next sale exempt from grading requirements is: (5) direct sale by the producer where the buyer takes deliveries of produce at the actual shop or stall at which it is sold by retail". Those are all the sales which are exempt from grading requirements. But those five exemptions (or four of them, anyway) are, I would have thought, very detrimental to the sale of good-class vegetables, to the encouragement of the grower of high-class vegetables, and also to the shopper, for whom, as I say, I am speaking tonight.

My Lords, I think shoppers are discriminating. I do not belong to the school of thought which thinks that people will just take anything these days. I think there is discrimination. I believe they are sensible, the many women, and men too, who buy for the home and the household. But it is very difficult, however skilled you are. In the case of certain produce which I think I should be skilled in buying because I know something about producing it, I should still find it very difficult to judge the quality. Where meat has been cut up, or fruit has been muddled up on a counter, I should still find it very difficult to judge what was in fact the first, second or third grades. So there is a great case here for taking the matter in hand and really doing something about it.

As the noble Baroness has said, this is not a Party matter. I believe she raised this matter in the days when we had a Conservative Minister of Agriculture, and he was just as unwilling to do anything as the present Minister of Agriculture, who belongs to the noble Baroness's Party and not to mine. So I am not speaking in any Party sense here at all; I am speaking for the housewife, for the consumer, and for an encouragement to the grower of better produce, which is what grading is.

I know something about, for instance, the suppliers to Marks and Spencer, of which the noble Baroness has spoken. I know of the people who supply them with tomatoes, and I know of the people who supply them with chickens. The standards they require for their produce is an inspiration to the people who actually produce for them. They will not have the slipshod, the bad quality. If we want to raise quality among growers— and I do, being a producer of much agricultural produce, although not of this particular kind—it is a good thing to encourage high-quality production, and this is the way to do it: and more strength to that remarkable firm for the many revolutions they have sponsored so peacefully and so successfully in the retail trade.

So I should like to say that from the point of view of the consumer and the Council over which I preside our argument is quite simple. We think that information about grading which is used by the retail trade when they buy from the wholesalers should also be available to the ordinary shopper. At the moment, a retailer can buy by grade and sell by mixing up produce from a number of grades. The housewife does not then get the benefit of the statutory grading system which the Government have gone to a lot of trouble to introduce. We think that grading information should be an extra and useful guide to consumers when they make their selection. Of course the final guide will be the consumer's own eye, but this does not mean that grading information will not give her an indication of relative merit.

I beg the noble Baroness who is to reply, whose knowledge of shopping is very great and whose representation of shoppers has in the past been extremely good, to listen to the pleas of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, of myself, speaking from these Benches on behalf of the consumer and the shopper, and of anyone else who is interested in this subject. I think this is a subject that the Government should do something about. I do not blame the present Government or any particular Government for not having done it before. I would just as willingly blame my own Government for this. But somebody must do it and it should be done now. I hope we shall impress the noble Baroness and the Front Bench—although it is sparsely attended because of the late hour. I hope that our words will spread throughout Government Departments and that we shall get some satisfactory reply on this matter.

8.1 p.m.

EARL FORTESCUE

My Lords, I start by admitting an interest. I am a small fruit grower myself. I entirely sympathise with the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, in this matter and I should very much like to see grading carried through to the retail level. I see the difficulties. They may have been exaggerated in the past; but clearly a very large number of inspectors would be needed to go round the retail shops to make sure that there was no "hanky-panky." Marks and Spencer, whom the noble Baroness mentioned, have always had a great reputation for buying the best and selling the best. It surprises me that their prices are higher than those of other retailers, because other big buyers—and there are increasing numbers of them—can obtain their food stocks at the same prices as do Marks and Spencer. I can only think that the reason why they are able to produce everything so consistently good—and possibly have to charge a little more for it—is that they are so careful in the matter of shelf-life. Shelf-life varies considerably in different commodities. For example, a cauliflower, which now has to be graded at the wholesale level, goes downhill very fast unless it is sold quickly; but this does not apply to the same extent to apples. I think that Marks and Spencer not only buy very well but judge their turnover very closely, so that they do not have very much left on their shelves; and what is left is "turned-over" the next day. This is merely a guess. I am speaking with no knowledge of Marks and Spencer other than that of a satisfied customer.

The one way of achieving the end which all who have spoken have in common is through some punitive measure which could be applied only by having a mass of inspectors. In this connection the breathalyser comes to mind. We should all like to see every motorist made absolutely sober. An impossibly large number of breathalysers would be needed to check that every motorist is absolutely sober all the time. But the penalties for "getting on the wrong side of a breathalyser" are such that I, for one, and a good many others are being much more careful than we used to be. But I do not think the terror element could very well be introduced into the retail trade as a deterrent to selling foodstuffs under the wrong name. It just would not work.

Another means to achieve our end lies in the education of those whom I have been taught this evening to call "the shoppers" rather than "the housewives" When I go into a shop I should like to hear someone saying, "What are Cox's Grade 'A' to-day? I want some Cox's." Then, "That price is a bit high for me; what about grade 'B'?" If we get shoppers into that frame of mind we shall achieve our object fairly easily. But nothing has been done so far about getting shoppers grade-minded. In any event, selling goods by false description is already an offence.

The scheme of grading has got off to a rather difficult start. The apple crop is light this year; it was down by something like 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. Moreover, there were two gales in the early part of the picking season which produced an enormous amount of windfalls. Windfalls may look perfectly all right; and, if they are picked up quickly, they may be just as good as the perfect apple, providing they are eaten quickly. But they will not stand storage. A certain number of these specious rather than sound apples have got on to the market graded; and if they are eaten quickly enough nobody is any the worse. But the market has been flooded with windfalls—although they are now more or less cleared—and that has made the task of the graders more difficult. When I speak of "graders" I speak in terms of the large co-operatives and not of the small producers, many of whom, like me, do not do their own grading.

The large producers were planning their sales campaign from now. Just at this moment the Government announce that they are permitting the import of—I have forgotten how many—tons of apples from abroad before Christmas. That is going to wreck the ordinary marketing of the home fruit—and we have plenty of fruit in this country to last us anyway until January. It was a most inopportune announcement by the Government. If it had been made earlier it would not have wrecked the selling planning arrangements as it now has.

I think a few prosecutions—providing they are well publicised—for selling under the wrong label (it is already a crime) would be very beneficial. But, apart from the prosecutions I have just mentioned, the only hope I see of getting these gradings maintained right down to the small trader is in educating the buyers to insist on grading and to see that they get the grade they demand. I sympathise entirely with the ideals of the noble Baroness and should very much like to see something achieved.

8.10 p.m.

BARONESS PHILLIPS

My Lords, after listening to the two noble Baronesses who have spoken, I should like to assure them at once that I would far rather be speaking for the shopper than for Her Majesty's Government. But it is not for that reason that I sit on the Government Front Bench, and so I have on this occasion to speak for the Government and hope that the interests of the shopper and those of that august body are not completely at variance. As always, my Lords (and the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, knows me well enough to know that I do not say this in any other than a sincere spirit) I have admired the skill and eloquence with which the noble Baroness presented her case. I should not dream of insulting her, or the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, or the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, by attempting to reply to their arguments in any other than a straightforward way. I am not sure whether, at the end of the day, I shall be described as lacking in knowledge, as a stone-waller or as a reactionary. Nevertheless, I will do my best.

My Lords, it would be nice and easy, and it would be a happy circumstance, if we could assure the noble Baronesses that we could give a declaration of intent, but I am bound to say that Her Majesty's Government do not share the view that there is a necessity for grading fruit and vegetables at retail level. They do not see any need to reconsider their decision that the statutory grading of fruit and vegetables should be confined to sale by wholesale. I think we may lose sight of the fact that statutory grading was introduced to enable our own producers to compete more effectively with imported supplies. To achieve this object, grading has to apply at the wholesale stage, that is to say, at the point where the retailer exercises a choice between homegrown and imported produce, as the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, has outlined.

The statutory grading scheme is designed for produce in bulk. That is its purpose, and it would be a totally unsuitable instrument to cover grading at the retail end. That is not to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, that another instrument could not be introduced; but this is a totally unsuitable instrument to cover grading at the retail end, because grading individual small quantities or single items would pose problems quite different from those associated with the grading of bulk consignments.

My Lords, any housewife who suspects that her retailer is displaying good quality produce at the front of the pile while serving poor quality from the back, should take her custom elsewhere. I am bound to say that, having discussed this question of grading with shoppers and retailers, some of the replies from the shoppers were a little different from those I had anticipated. Perhaps they did not entirely back up the case presented by the two noble Baronesses this evening. I found also that there is not a prevalence to mix grades, at any rate among the retailers with whom I have had the pleasure of dealing. Perhaps we are doing the retailers an injustice if we suggest that this practice is as prevalent as we have heard this evening.

The most cogent argument against grading at retail level in present circumstances lies, I think, in the inevitable effect on prices, and I am wondering whether my noble friend fully appreciates what this effect might be. If my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry is asking that the shopper should be able to demand a pound of Class 1 apples and be sure that she would get no apples below Class 1; or demand a pound of Class 2 apples and be sure that she would get no apples below that class, this would be a very expensive service.

We have heard adequate testimonials this evening to a certain firm, and I am only sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Sieff, was not present this evening, because I am sure that he would have enjoyed the free publicity material that was handed out. We know that this firm offers a splendid service. It involves repeated checks on produce up to the point when it is actually handed to the shopper. These repeated checks are necessary, as was pointed out by the noble Earl, because fruit and vegetables are natural products and their condition may change in a matter of days or even hours. In effect, the retailer I have in mind (and we all know who that retailer is) offers a Class 1 guarantee, and I accept that there are many shoppers willing to pay the premium in order to get this service and this guarantee.

But I should like to ask both noble Baronesses who have spoken this evening whether they can honestly say that the majority of shoppers would be willing to pay the same premium to get a Class 2 guarantee. Yet if it costs the retailer, say, an extra 2d. a pound to offer a Class 1 guarantee, it will actually cost the same to offer a Class 2 guarantee. For this reason, if for no other, Her Majesty's Government would need to be convinced that the benefit to be derived from grading at retail level would justify the cost in terms of the price, and of the manpower necessary to enforce the grades. Though our admiration for Marks and Spencer is untinged, we must recognise that in this market that firm does not carry a vast percentage of the trade.

The noble Baroness mentioned the announced intention of the E.E.C. countries to introduce grading at the retail level. Perhaps this is one ray of hope that I can give her. Her Majesty's Government are keeping a close watch on these developments, remembering that it is only now being introduced. We are particularly concerned to see how the grades are applied and enforced and also their effect on prices. In the meantime, my Lords, I think it would be unfair to assume that grading at wholesale level will not bring some benefit to the shopper. There will be an improvement in quality and presentation of home-grown produce, and it will reach the shops in a fresher condition because national standard grades will speed up and streamline distribution.

I was happy to see in my own greengrocery store to-day a box of graded apples placed in a basket and presented to the shopper in one grade group only. I am bound to say that when I asked some shoppers whether they would buy something marked Class 2, they seemed a little doubtful, and I think that these are some of the things which we have to consider in relation to the education of the shopper.

My Lords, I can only say that Her Majesty's Government are concerned with the principle of consumer protection, and that needs no underlining from me. But priorities have to be determined, and for this and for the reasons I have given, Her Majesty's Government do not accord to the introduction of statutory grading at retail level the same degree of priority as do the noble Baronesses and the noble Earl who have taken part in this discussion. Our most urgent task must be to ensure the success of grading at the wholesale stage. I would say that my own experience has shown that shoppers are discriminating. What I have pleaded for over the years has been education, but we should be doing the British housewife less than justice if we said that she was not a good shopper. What we all seek is to make it possible for her to get true value for money. I can only say to the noble Baroness that I should be the last to suggest that she accepts all this as final. I know that she will not, and I hope that she will continue to bring to Her Majesty's Government an earnest plea for the shopper.