HC Deb 09 December 1926 vol 200 cc2408-14
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, at the end, to insert the words except that, in the ease of articles specified in Part II and Part III of that Schedule, where the article is weighed for sale in wrapper or container the weight purported to be sold may include the weight of the wrapper or container if the weight of the wrapper or container does not exceed—

  1. (a) in the case of an article specified in Part II of the Schedule two and a-half drams; and
  2. (b) in the case of an article specified in Part III of the Schedule for a parcel not exceeding three pounds in weight four and a-half drams, for a parcel exceeding three pounds but not exceeding seven pounds in weight, three and a half drams, and for a parcel exceeding seven pounds in weight three drams per pound of the article sold."
On the Second Reading of the Bill I promised to insert an Amendment allow- ing a proportion of paper in cases specified in the Schedule, as amended. The Amendment which follows mine, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes)—in line 8 of my proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "four and a-half" and insert instead thereof the words for a parcel exceeding two pounds but not exceeding three pounds three and a-half drams, for a parcel exceeding three pounds but not exceeding seven pounds three drams, and for a parcel exceeding seven pounds two and a half— contains a suggestion for which I think there is some reason, that while it is right to allow a fixed amount, say, for a 2 1b. bag, the weight of the paper which is necessary does not increase arithmetically as you go up.

On an 8 1b. bag it does not happen that there is four times as much paper as on a 2 lb. bag. I have been carefully into this question. There is some substance in the proposal of the hon. Member for East Ham South, and I am moving my Amendment in an altered form because I think it will meet his point. I do not say it is absolutely scientifically correct, but it meets the suggestion put forward by the hon. Member in his Amendment in what, I think, is a reasonable and workable way. I hope it will be accepted.

Mr. BARNES

I am glad the President of the Board of Trade has been able to meet the principle of the Amendment I put down, but in order to avoid any misunderstanding it is necessary that I should state clearly our view towards the Amendment as amended. We regret that the President has been compelled to depart from the principle of net weight, but we welcome this Bill as a considerable advance on the present system. As we are favourable to the passage of this Bill we are sorry that it has been introduced so late in the Session as to curtail our opportunity of expressing our views upon it. In the case of a good many of these articles it is not necessary to eliminate net weight at all. Let me explain exactly what I mean. I have here some samples of sugar, and the weight of paper which the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to allow means that on every pound of sugar the consumer loses that quantity. One or two pieces of sugar do not appear to be very much, but on the total amount of sugar sold in this country the consumers are defrauded of about 500,000 1b. to 750,000 1b., so that we can really see what it means on the total amount of sugar produced.

The Amendment in its modified form allows the heaviest paper now current in use in the trade, and, in fact, it destroys the utility of this Bill on all the items of food in which this paper is to be used. Take, for instance, articles of 6 1bs. weight. Under the original Clause the allowance of 27 drams was given. Under the Amendment the allowance is 21 drams, whereas the heaviest paper now in use in wrapping these commodities only amounts to 18 drams, and the general paper in use in wrapping these commodities only amounts to 10 drams. Therefore the President's allowance is double the commonly used paper and three times in excess of the heaviest kind of paper used. If you take articles of 8 1bs. in weight, the President's allowance is 24 drams, equal to the heaviest paper in existence and double the weight of the lightest or commonest paper. In the case of articles of 10 lbs. in weight the President's allowance is 30 drams as against 25 representing the heaviest paper. However, it is not our desire to hold up this Bill at all, but I think I have given sufficient information to show the Committee that this allowance is too generous. It undermines the principle of the Bill considerably, and when the Bill is passed the consumers will still be defrauded of a considerable quantity of the commodity they are entitled to receive when buying. In the circumstances, having made our position quite clear, I am prepared to accept the Amendment, and I do not propose to move my own.

Mr. G. HURST

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 6, to leave out the words "two and a-half," and to insert instead thereof the words "three and a-quarter." This Amendment will increase the allowance in paragraph (a) from drams to 3¼ drams; and the reason for it is this. It is the view of the whole body of grocers in the Manchester and Salford area that the allowance of 2½ drams is really inadequate. It is their present practice in packing 1–lb. packages, say, of suet, lard and margarine, to use paper which is 3¼ drams to the 1b. piece. This is a very familiar paper which everybody knows. Paper of 2½ drains to the lb. piece Is much thinner, and the commodities are liable to stick to it, particularly in hot weather, and it is not so convenient as the heavier paper. The 3¼ drams is really a negligible weight in comparison with the lb. weight of the article. In this area they never use the lighter paper, and, moreover, as long as this concession is made under paragraph (b) I do not see why a corresponding concession should not be made in paragraph (a).

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not press his Amendment. The hon. Member opposite says that I have done too much while the hon. and learned Member says that I have not done enough. Perhaps between the two I am taking the best course. What I am proposing was recommended by the Scottish Federation of Grocers. It was specifically put to them whether it was a reasonable proposal, and they are satisfied. We cannot all agree as to what is scientifically correct, but I think I have taken the wise course.

Mr. HALL CALNE

As I have some knowledge of the question at issue the House might like to know that on this matter those of us who are interested both in the consumer and in seeing that the article is properly packed, feel that the Government have met the situation very fairly. They have not gone as far as we would wish them to go. We have been compelled to reduce the weight of paper very considerably. Quite contrary to what the hon. Member for South East Ham (Mr. Barnes) has said, the weights of paper are not going to be more, but very much lower weight of paper will be used. The hon. Member for South East Ham produced a bottle in which he showed the amount of sugar that would be lost to the consumer. That actually represents one fifty-seventh of a penny per 1b. The firm that put these packets forward, I think he will agree, charge more than do the famous co-operative stores for a lb. of sugar. We who are familiar with this matter certainly accept the Government proposals as absolutely fair and just.

Colonel LAMBERT WARD

Although trade customs differ, no doubt in various cities, it seems to me that the Amend- ment now before the Committee goes too far. The only fault which I have to find with the Amendment of the Government is this: 2½ drams of paper is quite sufficient to wrap 11b. of butter or margarine, but¼ of 2¼ drams of paper is not sufficient to wrap ¼ 1b. of butter. It is the converse of the case instanced by the hon. Member for South East Ham, and I feel that if the President of the Board of Trade could see his way to allow a little greater latitude with regard to these small amounts it would go far to remedy what most traders consider a genuine grievance. I have been asked to do my best to see whether I could obtain a rather more generous allowance for the smaller amounts. It has always been understood that the fact that the paper was included in the weight should be disclosed to the customer.

Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.

Proposed words there inserted.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I beg to move, in page 2, to kayo out lines 4 to 9, inclusive.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I beg to move in page 2, to leave out from the first word "ounces," in line 14, to the second Word "and" in line 18, and to insert instead thereof the words or in multiples of two ounces up to a limit of eight ounces, in multiples of a quarter of a pound up to a limit of two pounds, in multiples of half a pound up to a limit of four pounds, or in multiples of one pound."—[Sir P. Ounliffe-Lister.] This carries out an undertaking which I gave on Second Reading, that there should be increased variety of the multiples of 2 ounces.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out from the word "the," in line 21, to the end of the paragraph, and to insert instead thereof the words minimum net weight of the article contained therein, or, any case where the weight of the wrapper or container is permitted by the preceding Sub-section to be included in the weight purported to be sold, of the minimum weight of the article with its wrapper or container.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 5, at the end, to insert the words such statement to set forth that 'the weight includes the wrapper. I move this Amendment on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Leslie Scott), in whose name it appears on the Paper. The purpose of the proposal is self-evident. Unless it is adopted it is not clear that the statement required will be set forth as a matter of course.

9.0 P.M.

Sir P. CUNUFFE-LISTER

I have considered the suggestion, and I am advised that it is quite unnecessary, because already Clause 2 covers the whole position. If my hon. Friend will look at Clause 2 he will see that a statement as to the weight or measure of a pre-packed article of food shall be deemed to be a statement as to the net weight or measure thereof unless otherwise specified.

Sir D. NEWTON

We want it to be absolutely clear and plain.

Mr. BUCHANAN

Does this mean that, in future, there will be no doubt about the net weight, that no housewife need have any doubt about it?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

Clause 2 is absolutely general in its terms. Anyone who puts a statement upon a pre-packed article has to make it a statement of the net weight.

Sir D. NEWTON

That is not quite the same as stating definitely that the weight includes the wrapper, which is a definite consideration in the minds of many housewives.

Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.

Proposed words there inserted.

Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 31, at the end, insert the words (3) Any such statement as aforesaid shall not be deemed to be untrue if it is shown that it was true at the time of packing or of importation, whichever was the later, and the original wrapper or container has remained intact.

In line 32 leave out the words "by retail."

In line 41 leave out the word "net."

In line 44, leave out the words "the net weight thereof" and insert instead thereof the words "a statement of weight."—[Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I beg to move, in page 3, line 2, to leave out the word "export," and to insert instead thereof the words "shipment to a place outside Great Britain."

This Amendment is intended to apply to the case of goods sent to Northern Ireland. In that connection the word "export" is of course wrong and the right words are, I submit, those in the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.