HL Deb 14 November 1988 vol 501 cc865-9

4.37 p.m.

Lord Strathclyde rose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 26th October be approved [36th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft orders standing in my name on the Order Paper be approved. The draft orders would consolidate with amendments detailed weights and measures provisions for the sale of food and drink contained in two corresponding orders which were approved by your Lordships' House in August 1984. Amendments are necessary from time to time to take account of changes in European legislation in this area and of developments in the marketplace.

Taking first the draft miscellaneous foods order, four amendments are proposed. Three of these are detailed technical amendments which update and clarify existing provisions. The first would harmonise the quantity-marking requirements for large non-retail packs of chocolate and coffee products by allowing quantities to be marked on documents accompanying the packages instead of on the label and by allowing these quantities to be marked in metric units only. The second would exempt a number of foods from quantity marking when prepacked in very small quantities of less than five grams or five millilitres; and the third would clarify the definition of bread products which have to be made up in a range of prescribed quantities.

The fourth, and most important, amendment proposed in the order would be to add three new sizes to the existing range of prescribed quantities in which prepacked tea must be sold. The present range is based on increments of 125 grams. However, in order to allow the sale of certain gift packs which do not compete with the normal shopping basket packets of loose tea or tea bags, we propose to add to the existing range three new sizes for loose tea—100, 200, and 300 grams—provided it is packed in tins, glass jars or wooden boxes. The United Kingdom tea trade has been consulted and has raised no objection to these additions to the range.

The principal amendment would implement a European Community directive, adopted in June of this year, by introducing mandatory ranges of metric sizes for sparkling wines from 1st January, 1991; and for spirits and liqueurs, from 1st January, 1992. From those dates only drinks packed in sizes from the ranges will be allowed on to the Community market although provision has been made in the draft order to allow drinks packed before those dates in other sizes to continue to be sold while stocks remain. The range for sparkling wines, like the existing counterpart for still wines, is based or 75 centilitres as the standard bottle. The range for spirits and liqueurs will adopt 70 centilitres as the standard bottle size to reflect the majority view of the European trade. Although our own bottlers would have preferred the 75 centilitre size, in their view agreement on a single mandatory standard bottle is more important than any traditional attachment to a particular size.

As a consequence of introducing new ranges for sparkling wines and spirits and liqueurs the draft order would also extend the current quantity marking requirements for these drinks from 5 litres to 10 litres.

The new order would also allow still table wines made up in 35, 70 and 125 centilitre bottles before 1st January, 1989, to be sold thereafter. Although new bottling in these sizes for the Community market will not be permitted from the end of this year because they do not appear in the mandatory EC range, provision needs to be made for retail sales to continue until stocks are exhausted. The current quantity marking requirement for these drinks would also be extended from 5 litres to 10 litres.

Finally, the descriptions of alcoholic drinks in the 1984 order which are based on common customs tariff numbers, have been replaced by new European Community combined nomenclature code numbers. This is a purely technical amendment.

The two new consolidated draft orders were sent for comment to some 200 organisations representing UK manufacturers, importers, retailers, consumers and enforcement authorities. No adverse comments have been received.

I am sure that your Lordships will also wish to know that the orders were considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments but the committee did not draw the special attention of your Lordships' House to them. With that, I beg to move the two draft orders.

Moved, That the Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) Order 1988 and the Weights and Measures (Miscellaneous Foods) Order 1988 laid before the House on 26th October be approved [36th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Strathclyde.)

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for speaking to the Motion approving the two orders. I should like to deal first with the miscellaneous foods order with which we have no particular difficulty. It is extremely complex but on the understanding that the normal consultations have taken place, and that those concerned have no great difficulty, we are happy to fall in line with the Government's proposals.

On page 6 of the order there appears a definition of "iced lollies". Can the noble Lord explain to the House what iced lollies are? It is a novel expression which I had not come across. No doubt the noble Lord will be able to satisfy us that the expression is in the English language and therefore properly enshrined in secondary legislation to be approved by your Lordshps' House.

I turn to deal with the intoxicating liquor order. Although we may regret the passing of various measures with which we have been familiar, we must accept the fact that the world moves on and that we must conform to Community regulations. Schedule I contains a definition of wines and mention is made of "yellow wine". I was always brought up to believe that there are white wines, red wines and, arguably, rose wines. I have never come across a yellow wine and I shall be grateful if the noble Lord will explain what it is.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for welcoming the draft orders. They are complicated but they are necessary for our industries.

I shall be delighted to answer the noble Lord's two questions. The expression "yellow wine" initially confused me but I have since discovered that it is a wine particular to France. I am sorry if that explanation does not help the noble Lord. However, perhaps when he is next on holiday in France he could ask a Frenchman what is le yin jaune.

I turn to the question of why iced lollies are excluded from quantity marking in the order. Iced lollies and water ices are included in the list of food products which are not required to be quantity marked because it would be difficult to make them up in pre-determined quantities which could be guaranteed by the manufacturer. In any case, consumers tend to purchase iced lollies as a snack food to fill an immediate need and I do not believe that they would find a quantity declaration helpful. I trust that those answers have helped the noble Lord, Lord Williams.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of iced lollies. However, as regards yellow wines, I am bound to say that asking Members of your Lordships' House to go to France in order to discover what is a yellow wine is a strange imposition on the patience and expenses incurred by noble Lords in the conduct of public business. Perhaps at the expense of the Government, or from his private pocket, the noble Lord will be prepared to have a tasting of yellow wines in your Lordships' House so that we can be clear about the definition.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, I shall be delighted to do so when I have the opportunity. I was not suggesting that the noble Lord should go to France but that if he happened to be there on holiday he should ask for yellow wine. I am advised that they are special wines bottled in the Jura region of France which, no doubt, he would now like to visit.

Lord Monson

My Lords, I should like to put a few questions to the Minister. I had not realised that these two quite different orders were being taken together. I understand the reasons for requiring some products to be sold in metric multiples and for others to continue to be sold in imperial multiples. But why is it illegal for retailers or manufacturers to add, on a purely voluntary basis, the imperial equivalents of products which must be sold in metric units, or to add the metric equivalent of products which must be sold in imperial units? Surely that is an unnecessary infringement of freedom.

I turn to the order relating to intoxicating liquors: I have not given the noble Lord notice of the question and I do not suppose that he will be able to give me an immediate answer. Why do the Government persist in encouraging the confusing nonsense of selling wines in 10 and 20 fluid ounce quantities respectively? Even those who are by no means in favour of compulsory metrication can easily envisage a litre, half a litre or quarter of a litre. Not only is there the example of 75 centilitre wine and spirit bottles but also beers and soft drinks sold in 440, 330 and 275 millilitre cans.

Quantities of 10 or 20 fluid ounces are much more difficult to envisage. If my calculations are correct—and they may not be—those are approximate to just over 28 centilitres and just over 56 centilitres respectively. In other words, there is very little difference between 10 fluid ounces and a quarter of a litre or between 20 fluid ounces and half a litre. Does that not introduce a quite unnecessary complication for the unfortunate consumer? Why do the Government not encourage wine to be sold in multiples of a decilitre as in Switzerland and for all I know in other European countries where one orders un deci, deux decis or whatever it may be. That enables the consumer to order precisely what he wants, no more and no less. As matters stand one has to buy at least a quarter of a litre, which may be more than one wishes to drink and if one is driving may be more than one should drink. It is too late to do anything at this stage, but I urge the Government to look again at these points.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked some pertinent questions. As for his references to the imperial quantities on some products, it is probable that most imperial sizes will he discontinued in the future. However, as he has probably read in the press, we are seeking permanently to retain the pint for both draught beer and milk in returnable containers. However, it is not illegal for manufacturers voluntarily to add the equivalent declaration.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, why should it not be illegal for manufacturers to add that measure?

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, there is no need to make it illegal. It is perfectly all right for manufacturers to do so, as they always have done in the past.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, we are talking about weights and measures, and the consumer is involved. Should not the consumer be absolutely clear on what he is buying and in what quantity?

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, of course the consumer should know exactly what he is buying. Under these measures he will know precisely. As I have already mentioned, the situation will be exactly the same across Europe. Metrication of carafes of 10 fluid ounces and 20 fluid ounces is retained so that imperial measures can continue to be used. However, we expect that they will be phased out when metrication is completed in favour of standard metric sizes. By that time the consumer will be totally aware of the situation. Therefore I believe that consumers' rights will be protected.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, therefore, when I go into my local pub in Llandrindod Wells, and ask for one decilitre of white wine, they will understand what I mean. Is that what the noble Lord is saying?

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, I do not suppose that the noble Lord now asks for a particular measure of fluid ounces. He asks for a glass or half a bottle of white wine. He will still be able to do so and will receive a standard measure for the standard price.

On Question, Motion agreed to.