HC Deb 28 November 1974 vol 882 cc962-77

9.43 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Alan Williams)

I beg to move That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. COM(72)202 and R/2628/73. I hope that hon. Members will excuse me if, in view of the time factor and in the interests of those hon. Members who are particularly involved in Friday's business, I am fairly cryptic in my initial remarks and address myself to particular points later when they are raised.

I agree with the recommendation of the Committee on Secondary Legislation that this particular set of directives should come to the House. The central issue involved is the choice between the average and the minimum contents system, and it is right that the House should have an opportunity to consider that.

Even if this document were not before us we would soon need to have a discussion because of the decisions at the United Nations Codex Alimentarius Committee where it has been overwhelmingly recommended that the average system should be adopted throughout member countries.

First I shall deploy the key points in the individual directives.

The first, dealing with bottles as measuring containers, does not specify the products that should go into these containers, merely the metrological standards that must be met to ensure that the bottles are adequate for the purpose. This involves specifying the manufacturing tolerances within which they must be made. Tests to ensure tolerances and the methods of marking are made. The use of bottles in this way is novel to the United Kingdom but it is something which will be advantageous and helpful to the consumer.

The liquids directive, if I may call it that, has two objectives. The first is to set up a commonly acceptable method of measuring. This is based on the fact that the nominal quantities will, on average, be met over a production run. Around this there is the safety net established by tolerances below which the quantity must not fall. In addition, this directive also prescribes quantities for certain liquids covered in Annexe III. This is optional, however, and a member country can have a larger range if it so chooses, or no range at all as long as goods which meet the directive's standards are allowed access to the member country's market.

Work started on this directive before we joined the EEC. We have obtained certain, I think important, improvements. The first is a derogation of three and a half years. That, when added to a one and a half year time lag for implementation, gives us a five-year preparation period before implementation. We have also obtained the important agreement that checks will now be acceptable at the retail level and at the point of import. I regard this as an important attainment for the method of inspection in this country. That is covered in Annexe I, paragraph 6. There is also a minute of the Council, clarifying this.

In general all our export sizes have been covered by the ranges which have been agreed. For example, the dispute over the bottle of Scotch has now been settled and the 75 centilitre and 37½ centilitre sizes have been agreed upon.

The solids directive obtains a similar objective, for virtually all goods other than those covered by the liquids directive. It includes some liquids. The list is in Annexe III. This directive does not prescribe quantities. The experience of the liquid directive was that the prescribing of quantities led to a substantial delay in the preparation of the directive. Therefore it was decided to separate the prescribed quantities into a directive of their own. This is still at an early stage of preparation. In the meantime it was agreed to put forward the directive which is before us.

The Council working group is still considering certain important issues about this directive. There are, as hon. Members will recognise, two lists—A and B—giving the full range of tolerances which are permitted. These vary according to the difficulty of control at the point of production. Certain manufacturers are trying to get yet a third list. I advise the House that we would regard this as unacceptable and are arguing against it in the working group.

I come to the basic principle, which is why I am sure the Committee felt it proper that these directives should come to the House. The system in this country has always been to specify the minimum amounts contained in cans, bottles and so on. This is the system to which we have clung and to which we tried to cling in our discussions at the EEC and in the discussions at Codex Alimentarius. At Ottawa and at Rome it was clear that world opinion, other than in Japan and Holland, was overwhelmingly against the minimum system.

Instead what is being proposed is a system of statistical sampling at or near the point of manufacture to ensure that contents, on average, meet the nominal amounts stated on the containers. There are negative tolerances which put a base nei below which quantities should not fall. This system differs from our present system in that the inspection has to take place primarily at the factory end rather than at the retail end. We have come to an arrangement on liquids and we are trying to obtain the same arrangement for solids. We have an arrangement which enables us to carry out inspection at the point of import and at the point of sale.

We tried to persuade the EEC to accept our system. We were unsuccessful and when the United Nations' decision was arrived at it presented us with a situation in which as a trading nation we had the choice of adopting a new system or imposing on our manufacturers the unnecessary cost of running two production lines and placing them at a grave disadvantage in the world market. I am afraid that the change that is taking place is inevitable in the circumstances regardless of market conditions.

We must not overstate the general case, but the existence of the negative tolerance system means that there is a minimum volume set within the system. Even under our own system under the weights and measures legislation a certain amount of error is permitted below the minimum. We have now obtained further checks for liquids and we hope in future to achieve the same checks for solids at the point of sale. I think that that will overcome some of the criticisms of the system.

The average system does offer certain advantages. Some goods are difficult to legislate for because in storage or display they tend to lose weight or volume—for example, tobacco and knitting wool. Even wine can be covered by the average at the point of packing. The system will facilitate something which many hon. Members have wished to see—namely, the introduction of weight control. For instance, the weight of the whole of the fruit in a can of fruit will be taken into account and not the syrup. These are important changes and I would not wish to underestimate them.

The fact remains that we have an agreement with the Commission that we can withdraw from the Market, or block entry to the Market of, any goods from Member countries if we do not think that they have been packed in accordance with the directive. That is a far more important sanction than any fine. We regard this as an important weapon in protecting the consumer.

The directive states only the broad lines of principle and there are many points of detail to be worked out. For that reason my Department is now about to set up a working party consisting of consumer representatives, industrial representatives, and representatives of local authorities who will be mainly from the inspectorate and importers. The main aim is to work on the detailed systems of statistical control and on the various issues which arise as a result of acceptance of the directive. We have had full consultations and the Consumer Association has made it clear that it would also have preferred to stay on the minimum system, but in its last October speaking notes the belief is expressed that over a period the losses and gains should even themselves out.

9.53 a.m.

Mr. Terence Higgins (Worthing)

Those reading the report of the debate will probably not think that 10 o'clock in the morning or shortly before is a bad time of day to debate this matter. They may reconsider that view if they realise that we have all been up all night beforehand. I make no complaint about that. However, if we take a little more than a third of the time which the House has allocated to debate this matter we shall lose Friday's business.

As the whole object of the exercise is to ensure that the House has adequate time to debate these matters, I hope that the Government will ensure on a future occasion that if some accident restricts time unduly, provision will be made for additional time to be allowed. In the circumstances of the past 24 hours the restricted time available is clearly an accident. I in no way impugn the Government's motives. However, if accidents happen some sort of first aid should be provided for these measures.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), speaking last Monday in the debate on a similar order, emphasised the point which the Scrutiny Committee had in mind in recommending that we should debate particular matters, namely those of legal or political importance. This document raises points of principle which should be considered by the House. I wish to stress that it seems to me that the provision of the document—though not necessarily the detail—ought to result in a greater freedom of trade within the Community area, and this is something which it is desirable to achieve. It is a question of liberalisation as well as of harmonisation. That matter is not unimportant and should motivate the provisions in the document. It is also true that this arrangement may not have been achieved at all if we were not members of the Community. That in itself is an important consideration.

We are being asked to take note of the various documents mentioned on the Order Paper, but also we are asking the Government to take note of the views which we express. The Minister said that points made in this discussion would be useful for further negotiations and discussions. The reinforcement of Ministers' determination in negotiation is often as important as seeking to determine policy. We can all agree on that matter.

I should like to make one or two points about the documents with which we have been provided. It is true, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford said, that explanatory memoranda put forward by the Government should be as short as possible, but at the same time it is important that they should deal with the subject adequately and there is a balance to be struck. It is tremendously important that memoranda should be absolutely objective. Therefore, I was a little worried to read in the memorandum on Document R/2628/73 a paragraph entitled "Policy Implications": The main policy issue relates to the choice between declaration of average contents, based on sampling at the point of manufacture, which has gained world-wide approval, and the United Kingdom practice. … I do not think that it is true to say that the practice has gained worldwide approval, not least because it is not United Kingdom practice. Therefore, memoranda put forward by Ministers and others should be as objective as possible and should not attempt to make value judgments or slip in persuasive arguments under the cover of what should be objective memoranda.

I understand from the debates that took place on this topic in another place on 7th November that the draft on the solids directive is not up to date. Will the Minister confirm whether that is or is not the case?

I turn to the substantive issue—namely, the difference between minimum or average contents which should be imposed when supplying and declaring to con- sumers the contents of a package. There has been similar opposition in the past on this point from some organisations. They have now accepted, however reluctantly, what is now proposed on the average system as something with which they are prepared to go along.

Most of the arguments on the average system and the minimum system are well known, so I presume the House will not wish to go into them now. Therefore, I shall seek to deal with one or two points on the proposed average system.

Has the Minister any idea how large is the batch from which the statistical sample will be taken? Is that figure laid down? What happens if a batch is faulty—and, if so, is there an implicit sanction in that the batch would then have to be scrapped? Presumably the cost of doing that will fall eventually on the consumer. Does the Minister expect that the costs will be greater for producers under the average than under the minimum system, or will they be less under the minimum system?

The advantage of the minimum system is, of course, apparent. The consumer knows exactly what he is entitled to, whereas all he knows under the average system is that at some stage in the process of production the package he is buying was part of a large number of things which formed a particular sample and the average was all right. We are not in the position which a Ministry of Health spokesman described soon after World War Two when, in referring to the weight of babies, he said that there was no reason why they should not all be above the average weight. I think there is a considerable danger that the products bought by the consumer may be considerably below the average.

Will there be any check now at the retail end? Secondly, if the consumer is not satisfied with the package he buys, has he any grounds for complaint? To be more specific, let us suppose that the tolerances are 5 per cent. either side of a given amount and the consumer buys a package which is outside those tolerances. Does he have any grounds for complaint? If he does, to whom does he complain? The Minister seemed to be rather reassuring on this in referring to Annexe I, paragraph 6, saying in effect that we shall in future be both working an average system but also checking things at the retail level. I am not clear how he envisages that will work and I should be grateful if he would clarify it for us.

When does the Minister expect the legislation, which, I gather, will be necessary if we proceed on the lines he suggested to be introduced? There seemed to be confusion in earlier discussions on the subject about whether it had to be introduced within 18 months from the directive being approved or whether we could continue with our existing system until 1980. I shall be grateful if the Minister will clarify this and in particular confirm whether it will be possible for us to continue with non-metric systems in this country when the items are used for domestic consumption as against being exported, not only up to 1980 but even beyond that date, if certain producers wish to maintain their existing arrangements.

I have been very brief and have phrased my speech almost entirely in terms of questions. I shall be grateful if the Minister will kindly answer these points.

10.3 a.m.

Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)

We are throwing away 1,000 years of history. Hitherto in this country it has always been possible for a purchaser to determine whether he was getting the quantity he thought he was buying. The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) asked a very relevant question: can purchasers any longer assure themselves of that in any way?

Many Members of the House who have been in industry are well aware of the mathematical ways in which one can deal with problems of quality control or sample products when one buys them or as they pass through a factory or are passing out of a factory if one wishes to do so. This is fine for a large organisation.

In Annexe II of the memorandum the answer to the hon. Member for Worthing's question is set out in magnificent mathematical formulae. They are accurate. I am sure that my hon. Friends and many other hon Members are aware that they are accurate. I am equally sure, however, that 90 per cent. of the community will not be able to understand them.

In this extraordinary directive, a package is called not a package but a prepackage. For a thousand years of British history the housewife has known that when she buys a package she will receive not necessarily a certain quantity but not less than a certain quantity. This has been known from the Middle Ages and before. One does not necessarily get the same quantity in every package of goods. But hitherto, with certain exceptions, if someone bought, for example, a 1 lb packet of soap flakes, she might get a few marginal grammes over, but at least she got a pound. She got what she was paying for.

In a sense the balance was in favour of the consumer—one of the few cases, perhaps, where it was. Now the balance is being altered. Instead of receiving not less than a pound if one is buying a 1 lb packet, one receives a packet which is on average a pound. The balance is no longer in favour of the consumer. She is no longer getting at least what she has paid for. She is receiving on average what she has paid for. which may be less or may be more.

The consumer has in theory, one presumes, to look up Annexe II to make sure that in a given batch she buys a certain number of packages to conform to the sample size listed in the annexe. How else does she prove that she is getting on average the right quantity? According to the directive, she can prove it only from the appropriate number of packets in a given production batch. How does anybody do that at the consumer end? It is something only a great quality control organisation can do at the production end.

The basic reason why the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and Members on the Government benches have always objected to the Common Market is that it is undemocratic. This is a perfect example of the effects of lack of democracy. We are given a system which is perfect for a large organisation to operate, and impossible for the consumer to operate, because the consumer, the member of the democracy, is not catered for by the Common Market.

My hon. Friend the Minister, in a very fair speech in which he put not only the case for the directive but the case against it, said that it was not just the Common Market but the United Nations that has done this. I have never thought that an organisation which gives both the United States and a tiny island in the Pacific one vote in its General Assembly was a magnificent representative of democracy. It may be a world organisation, and a universal organisation, but it is not representative of the population of the world. On a count of heads it is far from democratic. Like the Common Market, it can be subjected to the lobbies of producers as distinct from the interests of the vast mass of millions of relatively unorganised consumers. The fact that the United Nations as well as the Common Market is saying that no longer can the housewife make sure that she gets not less than she thinks she is buying does not impress me.

When my hon. Friend and his colleagues go to Brussels to discuss the directive, do they propose to say that perhaps it would be a good idea if Europe were different and distinct from other organisations in the United Nations?

We are told that one of the advantages of joining the Common Market is that the EEC is a great trading block which can, to some extent, make its point of view felt in the trading world because it has a quarter, or something of that character, of the world's trade. If that is so, let us exercise this power and let us say as Europeans that we believe in the consumer, and not the producer, being protected.

10.10 a.m.

Mr. John Davies (Knutsford)

Having regard to the hour and conditions, I do not wish to speak at length. The matters of concern have been adequately ventilated by the Minister and by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins).

I understand the depth of feeling of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and I share his view to some degree. We have become accustomed over many years, as indeed did our ancestors, to the concept of minimum, and it is a hard moment when one has to break it. However, the hon. Gentleman's general strictures about the adequacy of the United Nations as a body to look into these matters were a little unjust. The bodies concerned are expert. They are well advised by their respective Governments, industries, consumer associations, and so on.

I should have thought that the great weight of opinion which emerged in the committee of the United Nations which considered this matter represented pretty good evidence of serious consideration and serious conclusion. Therefore, we must take account of it and, as in many other matters, it means that we must at times tear up pages of our history. I am sorry that this is part of our experience in the present century and no doubt it will continue in subsequent centuries.

With regard to explanatory memoranda, there is a balance to be struck. The House does not want to be troubled with excessively lengthy memoranda. On the other hand, it needs clear indications from the ministerial side about the substantial issues, whether legal or policy. There is a tendency to err on the side of the laconic, which is strangely in contrast with much that is emerging from Government. I should hope that they would be a little more discursive on some of the issues which are of substantial importance to us.

My second point relates to the question of consumer interest. The consumer in this country will find himself faced with some difficult dilemmas in the sense that he or she will not be sure, because of the optional nature of the directive, whether at a given moment he or she is buying on a minimum or an average basis. Inevitably there will be a substantial period during which the situation of the consumer will be confused. Therefore, once the decision has been taken to move this way, the Government would be wise to move fully this way and, in due course, to try to ensure that the consumer has but one criterion by which to judge what he is buying. I hope that that will be in the Government's mind.

The Minister spoke with some satisfaction about the additional checks which have been obtained in discussion both at the point of import and at the point of sale in relation to goods manufactured outside the country. I understand the desire to ensure the interest of the consumer and I readily believe that it is inevitable that the consumer relies, and will rely more and more, on checks undertaken by the Government than on his own assessment of the goods which he purchases. This is part of the development of the retail trade and it is very difficult to resist.

It is undesirable that there should be proliferation of bureaucratic activity in relation to check, counter-check and re-check. I only hope that in adopting a firm and definite policy the Government will soon find it possible to concentrate their check system on a given point and, as experience is gained, rely on the efficacy and validity of the check system in other countries. I hope the checks will not infer an inescapable increase in bureaucratic operations in relation to goods.

Inevitably, in the circumstances of this debate, it has not been possible to discuss the full impact of these measures, amplified as they will be by further measures, upon industry generally. The impact is considerable and wide-ranging. The replacement of equipment which may have a perfectly valid life ahead but which must be jettisoned because of the directives will throw severe costs on industry. I appeal to the Government to take that into account in relation to the Price Code.

The provisions of the Price Code hardly make allowance for companies with perfectly valid equipment which they are obliged to put aside to comply with domestic or Community directives which totally invalidate the investment they have made. I hope that the amendments to the Price Code which are envisaged will embrace not simply a proportion but the totality of investment where that investment is solely in respect of the replacement of perfectly valid equipment which is rendered invalid.

Those are the issues to which I hope the Minister will address himself and on which he will let us know his views.

10.17 a.m.

Mr. John Roper (Farnworth)

I welcome the clear exposition of my hon. Friend the Minister in moving the motion. It contained much of the material that is lacking from the explanatory memorandum and reinforced the argument put forward by the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) that it would be helpful to have a fuller explanatory memorandum.

The consumer in future will have to place great reliance on the efficacy of the sampling and supervision procedure of weights and measures inspectors or, as they are now called, trading standards officers. Has my hon. Friend considered the retraining of the former weights and measures inspectors to enable them to carry out their new and rather different tasks? Will the working party of which he spoke consider the type of training courses which will be needed?

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) that the trading standards officers will have to carry out, on behalf of the consumer—who will not have the same reliance on minimum quality which he has had in the past—their new and important task. I hope that the Government will ensure that they are properly equipped to do so.

10.19 a.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

I am sorry that there is such a shortage of time. It is a pity that we went on to consider the second EEC document, as it might have been better for the reputation of the House had we spent more time on the first. When difficulties arise in future, people will read the debate, and we shall be criticised for having got ourselves into this mess.

The public will not necessarily understand the new system. I do not understand the mathematics. If people suspect that something can be fiddled, public confidence will drain away from a system which hitherto has enjoyed public confidence. Under the present system, any citizen can go to the town hall and get a weights and measures inspector to go into a shop to weigh goods about which he is suspicious. To that extent the system is self-regulating. In this respect we are throwing that system away. There will be no time for a Division on the motion, but in other circumstances 1 would not have wished to take note of the document because it seems that we are making a break with a very important function.

My hon. Friend did not mention what the tolerance is to be. I hope that it is contained in the regulations because it is important. If someone has a bonanza now and again, most of the others will be beneath average.

Mr. English

It is possible, of course, that the Government do not understand the mathematics either.

Mr. Spearing

It is wrong for any Government to bring forward regulations affecting ordinary people which the mass of those people, even those with low level mathematics, do not understand.

Shall we still maintain the dual system in the domestic market? If we can maintain it, we should. The onus is on the Government to maintain it and to maintain public confidence in our laws and in our democratic system which this document seeps away.

10.21 a.m.

Mr. Alan Williams

I will deal with as many points as I can.

The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) asked how much is a batch. It will depend on the nature of the process and the product. There is a ceiling of 10,000. Anything over that will be related to the hourly rate of production. There is a ceiling, but it is a matter for the inspectorate to determine what will be the appropriate size of sample in any specific case.

The hon. Gentleman also asked whether there would be a check on the retail side. The relevant minute of the Council of Ministers states: The Council agrees that the directive does not prevent the introduction or maintenance of national legislation for control of the import, wholesade or retail level in order to protect the consumer. That further amplifies paragraph 6 of Annexe I.

Mr. Higgins

Does that mean that if the consumer in the shop finds something, perhaps imported from another EEC country, which is below the average tolerance as set out, he has recourse? If so, to whom does he complain?

Mr. Williams

Of course he has recourse for complaint. He will complain, as at present, to the Weights and Measures Inspectorate, which would be able to take appropriate action.

The hon. Gentleman also asked when legislation will be modified. We gained a derogation which gave a total period of five years for our preparations. I appreciate the point made by the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) about our not wanting to be unduly slow if it means a lengthy and confusing transitional period, but we shall obtain advice from the working party.

Will the cost be greater than under the minimum system? We expect the price effect to be neutral. Yesterday I was told at a conference of soap and detergent manufacturers that it would be helpful from the cost point of view, but I am not holding them out as a sample from which one can necessarily draw conclusions for the whole of industry. Our assessment is that it might work out neutral in its cost impact.

I was asked whether Imperial measures would be allowed. The answer is yes, for internal trade. I know that the hon. Gentleman has referred in private conversation to his concern about the importance of being able to buy a pint of milk. That will be possible if the public want it. Milk sold in bottles is not a matter of international trade, so I see no difficulty arising.

Mr. Roper

Does the same apply to milk imported by Northern Ireland from the Republic, or does that have to be in metric measures?

Mr. Williams

They will have a five-year period, anyhow, in which to cooperate At that stage it would work in the same way as trade between any other two member States.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West referred to 1,000 years of history. It makes a dramatic point. Unfortunately, it does not have much statistical base. My hon. Friend doubted the statistical understanding of Ministers, and I cannot boast about my own detailed knowledge. Foods were not controlled until 1926, and non-foods until 1963. The Magna Carta did not prescribe exact quantities, and, during the war, certain products were on an averaged basis, anyhow.

Mr. English

My hon. Friend's officers are looking only at the statute book. They have forgotten that in the Middle Ages bread and other products were controlled by the authority of each individual borough.

Mr. Williams

My hon. Friend said that we had been accustomed for 1,000 years to being absolutely sure of the minimum amount being obtained. It is a nice debating point, but it is not one which bears a great deal of historical analysis.

The hon. Member for Worthing and my hon. Friend the Member for Farn-worth (Mr. Roper) were rightly concerned about the statistical nature of the control data. The statistical data are intended to give guidance to the inspectors. The method of control will be at the factory, and it will be a statistically agreed system by the consumer and the inspectorate to ensure that the standards are sustained. The inspectors have access to factories for spot checks. No one will be able to stop them carrying out those checks and undertaking the appropriate inspections that they consider necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved. That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. COM(72)202 and R/2628/73.

Forward to