PRICES (STABILITY) (Hansard, 2 July 1957)

§ Mrs. Jean Mann (Coatbridge and Airdrie)
I am not surprised to see most hon. Members of the opposite sex leaving the Chamber at this juncture. If the House had been composed of 600 women Members it might have filled up now instead of emptying. The subject of price stability which I wish to raise now is one of the utmost importance, particularly to women. One finds in the House that if the subject of debate is one of importance to the housewife the men think that it is of no consequence to them. On the contrary, the subject of price stability is of the utmost importance not only to men but to the country and its export trade and general economic stability.
I find that there is at present a price instability which baffles even those who are responsible for compiling the index figure of the cost of living. It is something that floats above and below and round about the cost-of-living index figure, but cannot be caught and dealt with. It will never be caught and dealt with until the recommendations of Cmd. 8219, the Report of the Committee on Weights and Measures Legislation—the Hodgson Report—are put into operation.
I am perfectly well aware that on the Adjournment I cannot ask for measures that would entail legislation, and for that reason I intend to make other proposals. Something ought to be done while we are awaiting legislation, because our trade unions are being asked for a standstill agreement on wages. If there is to be such a standstill agreement for one year, the unions ought to have an assurance that the Government will give them some guarantee of price stability.
The Hodgson Report contains a list of unstable, fluctuating weights of packaged goods, fluctuating sizes of packages, fluctuating contents of boxes and of celophane packages, and of tinned fruits that are nearly all water and very little food. There is a list not as long as my arm, but as long as Nelson's Column in Trafalgar Square. The Report recommends that sugar confectionery should be sold by weight. I produce to the House a sample from the Tea Room. It will be noticed that the package could quite well contain three more items. In 1062 fact, when I last bought a similar packet, it did. It then contained 18, but tonight's packet contains only 15. I do not know who is responsible. Is someone "fiddling" between the wholesaler and the counter? It is impossible to trace the fault, but if the number or the weight had been clearly marked we should have known where we were.
Here is another item, which is dealt within the Report. This is polish, and at first glance it would appear to be a full tin; but if one turns it upside down, it will be seen that there is an indentation of more than an eighth of an inch. It is not at all what it appears to be. Last week, I bought a packet of envelopes; and, here again, the Report refers to the fluctuating size of packets and to the number of envelopes in the packets. Last week, the number of envelopes in the packet was 12. but when I bought what appeared to be an identical packet this week the number was 11.
I find reference to packets of nails. The Report states that they should be sold by the number in the box where they cannot be sold by weight, and that the number should be stated. What I have weighs less than an ounce, and there is no guarantee as to what the weight is, or whether, if I bought a similar packet next week, the quantity would not be reduced an eighth of an ounce, or even a quarter.
Then we come to something which has been referred to time and again in the newspapers. Never has there been so much money spent in advertising as for detergents; but the advertising never seems to reduce the price. The manufacturers give prizes or refunds of 4d. if one presents a coupon, or of towels, or penknives; they advertise "large" sizes, and now "magnum" sizes, so I bought a "magnum" size packet. No weight is stated on the packet of either size, and I cannot see any difference between the two. The Report states that the weight should be clearly stated.
The housewife suffers because of soap which is sold by weight. Here are two packets, almost identical. The firm making it recently advertised a reduction in price, but if one weighs the two packets it will be found that there is also a reduction in weight. That is what I object to, and that is what is baffling the housewife. It is not merely that the £ is not going so far, but also that the contents 1063 of almost every packet she buys seem to to be smaller or fewer.
I was expecting visitors last Sunday, and on Saturday night I found I was short of spice for a cake which I wished to make. I went out and bought the spice; but when I got out the ingredients, and began to mix the spice with the flour I found that I had only half the quantity that I needed. I should have gone along to the shop and bought another packet but, unfortunately, it was shut. This brought home to me what is happening, whether it is with a little tin of spice or a large packet of detergent.
I arrived home one Friday and my husband said, "You might have left enough corn flakes for the week." I said, "I did. I bought a magnum packet." My husband said, "Did you think we were interested in cutting out the figures on the packet, because it seems to be largely a matter of cutting out little Bobo or the British Grenadier and sticking them together?" My son said, "We have no time for that in the morning when we are rushing to catch a train. It is corn flakes we want, not little Bobo on the packet." The packet could easily have lasted a week if it had been anything like filled.
I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary knows of the approaches which have been made by women's organisations to his Department to have this remedied. I am sure that the trade unions know that the housewives say to their husbands. "We just cannot manage." The housewives do not know what is hitting them. It is subtle. It is insidious. It is a more deadly thing than telling them that a subsidy is being withdrawn—that is, at least honest, though we may disagree with it—that eggs are going up by ld. a dozen or that sugar is going up by 2d. per lb. What is happening is dishonest and baffling and may be the cause of women urging their husbands to seek pay increases and of workers and trade unions being loth to accept a standstill on wages.
An evening newspaper tonight informs us that the grocers state that weights should be shown on packets and that they are pressing for a ban on deceptive packets and odd weights. It says that grocers want the net weight of groceries to be marked prominently and that they 1064 are urging the President of the Board of Trade to prohibit the use of ambiguous terms in describing packet sizes. A report in a grocery trade publication recently said that it had been hoped that these matters could be dealt with by way of a statutory instruction issued under existing legislation—that is what I am trying to probe tonight—but official opinion was that they would best be left to be dealt with in connection with the new weights and measures legislation.
I wonder whether they can be dealt with without waiting for the legislation. In paragraph 256 of Command Paper 8219 I read: An important provision of the 1926 Act is that the Board of Trade is empowered, after consultation with the interests concerned, to add articles to or remove them from the First Schedule by Order. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to consider, if not tonight, whether he can help the situation without resort to legislation or at least whether he can persuade a standstill.
The Committee recommended definite weights for marmalade, jelly preserve, honey, syrup, treacle, gelatine, salt, pepper, mustard powder, mustard powder compounds, spices, cream of tartar. dried herbs, curry powder, potato crisps, Christmas puddings and custard, blancmange and junket powders, nut butter, flour of potato, oat flakes—the list goes on and on and is exceedingly complicated. It is only fully appreciated if one has worked in a kitchen.
The Committee goes on to say: It has been further recommended, particularly by the women's associations, that a wide range of non-food commodities which are in common household use should also be subject to these requirements. The requirements are stated weight, stated measurement, or stated number on the box or packet. The Committee recommends that liquid soap, synthetic detergents, all polishes and dressings, animal and bird food in biscuit or cake form, disinfectants, germicides, insecticides, ammonia, turpentine, paraffin, lubricating oils, writing, artists' and printing inks, household candles, seeds, nails, and decorators' sundries, such as petrifying liquid, fillers, pastes and wood preservatives, should be sold by net weight or measure only.
We are told on the patterns that it will take 12 oz. of wool to knit a cardigan, but we find that it takes 14 oz. If we look closely, we find that the weight of wool 1065 in each skein is only approximately 1 oz. I am glad to say that I always knit with wool produced by reputable firms and always get a net weight of 1 oz. The law is not for honest people, however. We do not know how long thread is. It may be 50, 100 or 300 yards. The Committee recommends that knitting wool and thread should be sold by weight.
Strawberries used to be sold in ½Jb. punnets or 1 lb. punnets or 4 lb. baskets. The Report says that a purchaser has no protection from an unscrupulous dealer who, while offering a 1 lb. punnet for sale, will remove some of the contents so as to make up seven punnets out of six as originally packed.
Some weight ought to he attached to items such as cakes, and especially to flour and sugar confectionery. Tobacco is not always sold by weight. Alcoholic liquor is often sold by the nip. In Glasgow, it is four to the gill, but in other places it is five and in some six. I hope that no one will think that I am a "pub crawler." All these things come into the cost of living.
The Minister of Labour apparently sends postcards to firms asking whether they have made any changes. He is quite content with postcards. I do not blame the Minister. It would be impossible, without a more stringent control and an army of civil servants, to follow up the long list, which is subject to constant fluctuations. The simple way is to carry out the recommendations of the Hodgson Report. In the meantime, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to pursue the question whether he can act by way of an order. If he cannot, I hope that he will make a very strong plea to those concerned to agree to a standstill in weights and measures.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll)
The hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) has raised a most important subject, touching upon the lives of every one of us. She has done it in her characteristic way, by combining example with humour, with the great sincerity for which she is well known by all hon. Members. In her opening remarks the hon. Lady rather twitted some of the male Members for their somewhat precipitate departure, but I would point out to her that there are a number of my hon. Friends, and 1066 not only males but ladies who, I am sure, if time had permitted, would have liked to speak on this important subject. The hon. Lady, understandably, quoted goods which mainly affect housewives, but there are plenty of things which affect male shoppers, particularly razor blades and shaving soap, where we have had similar experiences to hers. We can, therefore, understand some of her points.
Before dealing with the matters of detail which the hon. Lady raised, I must point out that I do not agree that the picture is nearly so gloomy as she has tried to make out. First, the Index of Retail Prices has increased by only two points in the year starting May, 1956; in fact, the index of food prices has fallen a little. Here, I would make a particular point in connection with the changing size and contents of packets. The indices are adjusted for changes in the contents of packets where packaged articles and foods are included in the index, so that the index figure records all such changes, up or down, which she outlined.
I will not attempt to deal with the broader questions upon which the hon. Lady touched in connection with price stability, except to say that the Government are greatly concerned to try to keep prices as stable as possible. The Board of Trade is particularly aware of the crucial importance of our price levels being kept in line, so that we can maintain our ability to compete in overseas markets.
We cannot think of money prices in isolation. What affects the consumer both at home and abroad is the money price in relation to the quantity of goods ordered, their quality and the kind of service which goes with them. The object of the existing weights and measures legislation is to ensure that the quantities sold are what they purport to be. It enables consumers to obtain one of the facts which they require in order to take a realistic view of the price at which goods are being offered.
The hon. Lady referred at great length to the Hodgson Report, and quoted extensively from that very important and valuable document. With her customary skill, she avoided referring to future legislation, which would have been out of order, and confined her remarks to some of the more spectacular and important points in that Report. The hon. Lady asked particularly if we could not 1067 proceed by regulation in regard to certain matters contained therein. While I must admit that it would be theoretically possible to proceed by regulation, I do not think that it would be advisable.
In the first place, we could only do so in the case of foodstuffs and to proceed by regulation would be a laborious procedure. It would be much better dealt with, even at the cost of some delay, by comprehensive and up-to-date legislation. Of course, any discussion of such legislation would be out of order in an Adjournment debate. I feel, however, that it might perhaps be of some assistance to the hon. Lady if I were just to outline the scope of the existing legislation which, in fact, provides a substantial degree of protection for the consumer today.
First, there are certain articles which may be sold only in specified weights or measure when prepacked. These are mainly foods such as tea, coffee, cocoa, potatoes; butter and cooking fat; dried fruits; and a range of farinaceous products such as flour, rice, sago and tapioca. Additionally, bread may only be sold in specified weights and milk in specified measure, whether prepacked or not.
Secondly, there is a very wide range of articles, comprising most foods, which when prepacked must be marked with the minimum net weight, measure or number. These articles do not have to be packed in specified weights, but the actual minimum weight must be marked on the packet, and it is an offence—and this is the important point—to sell such an article if the weight is less than that specified.
It is quite legal for a manufacturer of biscuits to sell packets of biscuits of any net weight he chooses.

§ Mrs. Mann
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all these packets are marked, "Approximate weight 8 ozs."? I find that they also state, "Net weight 6½ ozs.".

§ Mr. Erroll
I would like to correct the hon. Lady on that point. The normal marking is 7½ ozs. minimum net weight—that is, the guaranteed weight—and the average weight is 8 ozs. There are slight manufacturing variations which make it appropriate for the manufacturer to specify a minimum net weight of 7½ ozs. 1068 and an average weight of 8 ozs., but the important thing is that the housewife is certain of the minimum net weight of 7½ ozs.
I would just like to mention that there is a third group of articles which may only be sold by weight or measure. They are principally butchers' meat, coal and certain other commodities. Then there is the remaining vast range of articles which are not required to be sold by weight or measure, but if they are so sold and the weight or measure is stated in writing, then short weight or measure is an offence under the Merchandise Marks Acts. For food the requirements are even more stringent. It is an offence to give short weight or measure in the sale of any kind of food.
The hon. Lady will appreciate from what I have said that the public is reasonably well protected today. Nevertheless, the success of these protective measures must depend, in the last resort, upon the vigilance of the purchaser, and rightly so. It is for the purchaser to see that he or she gets the weight or measure charged for and to make vigorous complaints if satisfaction is not given. I do not share the gloomy view of the hon. Lady about the capacity of the housewife to shop effectively. There is now keen competition between rival manufacturers over almost the whole field of the housewife's daily purchases. There is similar competition between retailers.
If the housewife does not like one product because she suspects the quantity offered is being reduced or the price raised, or both, she is free to buy a competitor's product. Similarly, if the method of one retailer displeases her she will find her custom eagerly sought after by a rival retailer in the same neighbourhood. I remain convinced that although the housewife of today has lived through years of shortage, rationing and standardisation, she has still retained that most valuable of her many arts, the ability to make her money go as far as it possibly will. That ability is making today an important contribution towards price stability.