HC Deb 02 November 1976 vol 918 cc1227-40

'.—(1) The powers to prescribe the quantities in which goods may be made up sold, or made for sale, which are conferred by section 21 of the 1963 Act shall not be exercised so as to make unlawful any sale of goods to which this section applies.

(2) This section applies to a sale—

  1. (a) which is of goods which are prepacked sold, or made for sale in any quantity specified by the enactments and orders in Schedule (Pre-packed and other goods) to this Act (quantities expressed in the imperial system), and
  2. (b) which is made at any time before 21st April 1978.'.—[Mr. John Fraser.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.38 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)

With this, we may take Government Amendments No. 17 and No. 21, and Amendment No. 16, in Clause 2, page 3, line 13, at end insert: 'No order may be made applying to weighed out goods sold by retail before 1st January 1980'. The House will probably know—but I shall repeat what is written on Mr. Speaker's provisional selection of amendments which has been posted in the No Lobby—that New Clause 3 has been wrongly placed at the bottom of page 3001 in the list of amendments. It should have been placed as the first new clause.

Mr. Fraser

The new clause, Government Amendment No. 17, and Government Amendment No. 21—the new schedule—all hang together. Amendment No. 16 is an Opposition amendment.

The Government amendments arise out of an amendment carried in Committee to insert a number of words which Amendment No. 17 now seeks to remove. I should explain the effect of the amendment which was carried in Committee. There are two defects in its drafting. The first is a minor defect. Cheese is not subject to a prescribed quantity order because it is not generally sold prepacked. The second and perhaps the more serious defect is that the amendment which was carried in Committee does not make clear that "prepacked" means prepacked in prescribed quantities. The two phrases are not synonymous.

That having been said about any drafting defects, the intention of the Committee and of those moving the amendment was absolutely clear. The principle was clear that, for instance, butter, tea and bread should not be subject to what in shorthand we call cut-off orders before 1st January 1980. I counsel the House against choosing 1st January 1980, and I ask it to endorse, and, indeed, to widen substantially, the principle carried in Committee.

The Government seek to substitute 21st April 1978 as the date before which orders proscribing imperial sizes cannot and will not be effective. The effective date worried the Opposition rather more than the actual date when the order was made. I ask the House to choose the alternative date of 21st April 1978 for two reasons. First, choosing 1st January 1980 could mean—I put it no higher—an excessive prolongation of the process of changeover, with all that flows from that in terms of uncertainty, confusion and a lack of framework in which to have orderly planning and, not least, consultation. The effect of choosing 1st January 1980 would be not merely to tie the Government's hands behind their back, but to risk giving the consumer double vision.

Secondly, I ask the House to bear in mind that as from April 1978 metric packs may be freely imported into the United Kingdom. We had the argument in the House and in Committee whether this was likely to happen. I do not intend to pursue that argument now. The truth is that no one really knows the extent to which metric packs will come into this country from April 1978. Nevertheless the risk is there, and it would be unwise not to have the power to bring order into that situation. I say "bring order into that situation". That can be done only by an affirmative order of both Houses of Parliament. The argument about the date is that it may unduly prolong matters and remove the power to bring about order if there is need to bring order to the situation by 1978.

I have adopted the principle agreed in Committee and made it much wider. The amendment carried in Committee applied—apart from cheese, about which it is defective—to butter, bread and tea. According to the new Schedule it will apply to bread, which was in the original amendment, to milk—I re-emphasise that we do not intend to phase out the pint size—to prepacked potatoes, tea, cereals, flour, all edible fats, not merely butter, and to sugar, salt and jam. Indeed, it will apply to almost every important household food item sold in prescribed quantities. I hope that the House will think that a reasonable response to the principle agreed in Committee and will find it acceptable.

The amendments tabled by the Government have listed a number of prescribed quantity orders which apply only in Great Britain, not in Northern Ireland. Later, in order to make this absolutely clear, I shall ask the leave of the House to move a manuscript amendment. Northern Ireland prescribed quantity orders have always in the past followed British prescribed quantity orders. There is no intention of trying to steal a march in the Province over the safeguards introduced in the United Kingdom.

Turning briefly to the Opposition's amendment, No. 16, I think it would be as well if I heard what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) has to say before I attempt to reply. However, there are some problems of drafting, not least because the term "weighed out" foods is not a term of art. We know in our minds what it means, but it is not a term of art. I shall be happy to respond to the need to give some kind of safeguard about weighed-out foods, but I shall wait until the hon. Gentleman has made his speech.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Norman Lamont (Kingston upon Thames)

I must utter a mild protest that, as neither the Bill nor all the amendments were tabled until yesterday, life was made a little difficult for the Opposition to table their amendments in the right form. The Minister has complained about that fact. Nor has life been made any easier by the way that the Department has been behaving. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the Minister for what he said on New Clause 3. It is a concession that we welcome.

The Minister said that he accepted the principle that cut-off orders for prescribed quantities will be delayed until 1st April 1978. By that time inflation may be down to a more reasonable level. One of our objections was that the consumer would face considerable confusion with the current level of inflation. We welcome the broadening of the area from tea, bread, butter and cheese to cover a whole range of prescribed quantity goods. That seems the right thing to do.

The effect of the amendment is that for the most important things we shall not have compulsory metrication until 1978. By 1978 I confidently expect that there will be a change of Government, so who is to say that compulsory metrication will ever take place?

I turn now to Amendment No. 16. I am grateful for what the Minister said on weighed-out foods. I do not know whether our amendment is in the right form, but it has been asked for by the retail consortium. Again, we see no reason why weighed-out foods should be subject to metrication. As the House is well aware, there is a considerable problem relating to the manufacture of scales. There are about 250,000 shops, with more than 500,000 scales. All those scales have to be converted at considerable cost—perhaps £700 each. This change ought to be made gradually. The retail consortium thinks likewise. Originally we suggested 1985, but the compromise date of 1980 is perfectly acceptable. There is no reason for hurrying up the process of weighed-out foods beyond that. There is no argument about suppliers producing things in metric quantities and therefore those at the retail end having to harmonise with their suppliers. There is no argument about prescribed quantities, either.

I hope that the Minister will fill in the detail and tell us how he proposes to do this. I hope that it will be across a broad range of goods. I can see no reason why selling carrots or apples in weighed-out quantities in shops should be illegal. That would be ludicrous. As the scales manufacturers are happy with our amendment, I hope that the Minister will accept the principle.

Mr. Michael Neubert (Romford)

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), I welcome the Minister's conversion to our point of view, which was advanced on Second Reading and in Committee, that we should not go in a giddy rush towards metrication in prepacked and other goods when common sense and consumer opinion indicate otherwise.

The Minister should not have too many misgivings about his proposal, particularly the advantage of allowing present quantities to continue to be legally used, but there is the difficulty, which we debated in Committee, of the change from imperial to metric sizes. The Minister said in Committee that 4 ounces was equivalent to 113 grammes. I shall have to take the Minister's word for that. But, following a rapid extrapolation, we see that the proposed metric size rounded up nearest to the 4 ounce size would be 125 grammes. One ounce, which is 56½ grammes, would go down to 50 grammes. That would be an example of a size being made smaller and, therefore, the cost of the item would not go up.

One of our major causes for anxiety is that this process will inevitably lead to more expensive goods in the shops, not in terms of value for money but in terms of price for the item. The Minister has cited, rather reluctantly, on more than one occasion the mythical box of cornflakes which would increase by 10 per cent. in size yet by only 5 per cent. in price. He must recognise the danger here. This must not become part of the metrication mythology. There is no inexorable law of logic which says that if we increase size by 10 per cent., the price will go up by 5 per cent.

This example was a bonus for the consumer, but it related to one particular item in those particular circumstances at that particular time. In other instances the price may well go up pro rata. Small income families and pensioners may have difficulty in adjusting to the larger figures and will have the impression that prices are going up unless they appreciate that quantities are also going up.

I refer to the background information on the recently introduced order about tea. In that instance the differential begins to widen with other sizes in that range. For example, 8 oz, which is 226 grammes, is rounded up to 250 grammes. I asked the Minister what examples there would be of rounding down rather than up and he was able to cite only one or two at the lower end of the range.

Although 12 oz is equivalent to 339 grammes, the next size up is 500 grammes. That means that we go down 89 grammes or right up to the half-kilo size, an increase of 161 grammes. As the differential begins to widen, the price becomes increasingly important. That is why the Opposition think that the Minister has made the right decision not rush into these changes.

The Minister should not be too dismayed by the views of bodies such as the National Federation of Consumer Groups, which said: Any half-and-half stage in which some goods are sold in imperial, others in metric units, will be confusing for consumers and must add to costs. That is rather overdoing the argument. In fact, in several instances, consumers have been, are and will be transacting purchases in different units, and the problem should be not overstated.

I conclude by welcoming the Government's attitude to these changes, which, I am sure, are in the nation's interests, and particularly in the interests of consumers.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

The Minister opened his speech by criticising the drafting of the Opposition amendment in Committee on which this new clause is founded. The present new clause, which the Minister has moved, is also open to certain drafting criticism. As he said, it is the paving clause for the new schedule—Pre-packed and other Goods. The new clause applies to the sale of goods specified in certain enactments and orders listed in the proposed new schedule. Some of them, such as those relating to biscuits, cereals and dried vegetables, come under the heading: nitted imperial quantities in Orders made under section 21 of the Act of 1963". Nitted imperial quantities? The mind boggles. This conjures up an interesting recipe for "nitted" biscuits, "nitted" breakfast cereals or "nitted" shortbread. I am sure the Minister will put that right.

To be more serious, the way in which the new schedule sets out enactments and orders is a little inelegant. An order is an enactment and it is rather confusing to call them "enactments and orders" as the new clause does.

I refer to the very last order printed in the new schedule: The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Bread) Order 1976". This is about the third or fourth bread order that we have had in 12 months and I suppose that these orders will go on in future in the same form as in the past until 21st April 1978—the date mentioned by the Minister. They will be permissive orders. There is no doubt that it will be necessary to have these interesting orders from time to time, as it has been in the past, but they will be permissive, not mandatory.

The other peculiarity in the drafting of New Clause 3 is when it speaks about The powers to prescribe the quantities in which goods may be made up sold, or made for sale, Does "made up sold" mean sold made up? This again conjures up the interesting image of mascaraed biscuits, or powdered flour, or lipsticked sugar. Surely it means "sold made up". The new clause also uses the phrase "made for sale", but surely that means made up for sale. All goods are made for sale. These phrases are confusing and create some difficulties in interpretation.

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), when he complains that Government amendments appeared on the Order Paper at the last moment and that the Bill was not printed until the day before we were to discuss it on Report. This means that it is impossible for the Opposition to suggest amendments to the right lines or the right clauses. It is impossible for us to make any constructive suggestions or to put down amendments to Government amendments. If they had appeared on the Order Paper earlier, I would have taken an opportunity to put down a few amendments to tidy up what I would call bad drafting.

Mr. John Fraser

I suppose that it is a matter of congratulation for the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) that, no matter how late the Bill is published, it does not seem to have been much of an impediment to his putting down amendments. The amendments on the Order Paper are a reflection of the right hon. Gentleman's ingenuity.

It would be silly to allege or assert that everytime there is a conversion from imperial to metric the cost will not be pro rata. So far, we have had some encouraging examples. I have given the example of cornflakes. Another relates to dried vegetables. The old 8 oz pack costs 13½p the new 250 gramme pack will cost 14½p. Thus, the consumer will get 10 per cent. more product for 7½ per cent. more money.

The new metric pack for salt will contain 10 per cent. more salt, but the price will increase by only ½p or 1p—an average increase of only 5 per cent.

Mr. Giles Shaw (Pudsey)

Is the Minister satisfied that the prices to which he refers are due to the physical metrication of the goods and not to other movements of costs which happen to be brought into line when the change in pack from imperial to metric takes place?

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Fraser

I cannot say. I am quoting examples of cases in which there is 10 per cent. more in the pack and not 10 per cent. more on the price.

I received assurances from the sugar manufacturers and packers of a marginal decrease in the price of sugar. I do not exaggerate the importance of this, but there was a small decrease in price of sugar delivered to the retail store.

One reason why the consumer organisations prefer the 125-gramme pack is that the increase in size benefits the consumer, because the ratio of packaging to product diminishes. There is no heavy balance on either side, but the chances are that there will be a reduction in the price rather than an increase.

In an earlier debate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) was concerned about increases in prices because of the changeover. In response to the concern expressed both inside and outside the House, we changed the Bill to contain the provision that associates with the changeover from imperial to metric compulsory unit pricing, and so on. We have to give the maximum degree of reassurance to the consumer when we go metric.

The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) says that I am a convert to Gradualism. I am not a convert to gradualism in this area, but there are areas in which I might agree with the concept of the inevitability of gradualism. I agree that the right way to go about this matter is to take Parliament along with us.

The right hon. Member for Crosby was critical of the wording, including the phrase "made up for sale". The wording has been weighed extremely carefully. "Making for sale" refers specifically to bread. "Sale" refers specifically to intoxicating liquor. The other words all have their appropriate place.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) asked about weighed-out foods. The drafting of the amendment is not wholly adequate, and I cannot recommend the House to accept it both for drafting and other reasons. Weighed-out foods are not defined in the Bill and it would be extremely difficult to define them. The amendment does not make clear whether the restriction is intended to apply to the making of an order before 1st January 1980 or to the sale of goods before 1st January 1980. The more serious problem—this is not a drafting matter—is that foods which are weighed out are often closely linked to goods which have already gone metric or which are likely to go metric whether or not we have the Bill.

To give an example, sugar has gone metric on a voluntary basis, facilitated by an order of the House, but it may still be possible to buy weighed-out sugar in certain quantities. That is an example of an item which is weighed-out, though rarely, although the bulk of the product is sold in metric quantities. If we provided for weighed-out sales of every product, those sales might represent only 1 per cent. of the pre-packed sales of the product, and we should start to get into difficulties and might create the very confusion which the Bill is intended to remove.

I have recognised in answers to Parliamentary Questions and in discussions with consumer organisations that there is concern about weighed-out foods such as greengrocery, fresh fruit, fresh meat products in butchers' shops and fish. In those areas people are most concerned that there should not be early progression to metrication. I want to give the House a firm and solemn undertaking on the principle of the amendment in relation to those products.

The Government will not use the new powers under Section 9A to impose any cut-off dates for imperial units in respect of the three main retail weighed-out foods sectors. Those are the sectors which have caused the greatest concern and which cover the preponderance of weighed-out foods. They are greengrocers and fruiterers, butchers and fishmongers. No orders will be made to operate before 1st January 1980. This assurance is in line with my previous statements that the Government take the view that these sectors should be the last to change over. This assurance relates to the date of the implementation of possible orders, not to the date for bringing draft orders before the House. Because of the planning periods involved and the need for certainty in the trade, not least among scale manufacturers, it may be necessary to make such orders well before the effective date.

Mr. Norman Lamont

How long in advance has the Minister in mind for the making of such orders?

Mr. Fraser

Is the hon. Gentleman asking how much time will elapse between the making of an order and its implementation?

Mr. Norman Lamont

Yes.

Mr. Fraser

I repeat, it would be wrong to lay down a rigid timetable. When the Bill has been enacted I hope to give the House and the country a tentative timetable, as I said at the end of my speech in the Second Reading debate. That tentative timetable for the changeover will be decided after background consultations and negotiations inside and outside the House. If we went further than that we should be becoming rigid and arrogant.

Mr. Stanley Newens (Harlow)

I take it that the Minister still believes that it is necessary to have cut-off orders, and is saying that, although there will be delay beyond that previously envisaged, orders will still be laid and cut-off dates will be fixed. Why should not the imperial measurement merely be allowed to wither away?

Mr. Fraser

The withering away would take so long that it would not facilitate the needs of the consumer but, rather, work to his disadvantage. That is not simply my view. It is the unanimous view of every responsible consumer organisation in the country.

The date of 1st January 1980 is not a target date for the metrication of the weighed-out foods I mentioned. It is not a deadline; it is a minimum date. If weighed-out foods such as meat, fruit and vegetables and fish are the last in the queue, their place will depend on how many other products get into the queue in front of them.

I hope that the House will appreciate both the value of the undertaking I have given and its solemnity. If the Opposition are prepared to withdraw their amendment, the undertaking will have the endorsement of the Government, the Conservative Opposition and, I assume, the Scottish National Party and other parties. The undertaking would thereby be endorsed by virtually every major party in Parliament. If any Minister tried to bring in an order which breached the undertaking, that undertaking could be thrown into the Minister's teeth. For the reasons given, I hope that the House will decline to accept Amendment No. 16 and will endorse the serious and solemn pledge which I have given.

Mr. Giles Shaw

I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene prior to my hon. Friend who will be winding up the debate. I wish to speak particularly about Amendment No. 16. In accepting New Clause 3 and some of the arguments put forward in Committee, the Government are being both rational and agreeable.

The Minister stated his intention to exempt meat, fish, fresh fruit and vegetables but he is, therefore, excluding a number of other things, including confectionery. In Amendment No. 16 we have in mind not only the period of conversion required for the metrication of weighing scales but also the sheer size of the problem. There are about 300,000 retail outlets, many of which have scale sales. Confectioners are typical. The smaller shop carries a large range of goods and frequently sells vegetables and fish, for instance, alongside sweets and cigarettes. It is in such shops that the problem really arises and the cut-off date is, therefore, most at risk. I urge the Minister to consider whether he may not be ignoring the type of shop where the greatest difficulty could arise—the smaller mixed shop, such as a confectioner's, where loose weighed-out goods are sold alongside packed goods. Will the Minister also consult those who are responsible for retail confectionery, for example, and for small shopkeepers?

Mr. Norman Lamont

We are grateful to the Minister. He has made a substantial concession.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) made several arguments which I shall back up. We are sorry that the Minister cannot include confectionery and we urge him to reconsider. As my hon. Friend emphasised, that will cause confusion in shops which sell a mixture of goods including those that are to be exempt and those that are not. Hon. Members have argued that one cannot have one rule for this and another for that because it would cause confusion. That is particularly important for the small retailer who sells vegetables and fish as well as confectionery. I urge the Minister to consider that argument.

I was not clear of the Minister's meaning when he spoke of goods related to those sold in metric quantities. He gave the example of sugar, but that is an insignificant example. I am sceptical about his argument. The Minister has, however, exempted meat, fresh fruit, fish and vegetables, which are most important products. All those concerned will be grateful for his undertaking and for that reason we will not move our amendment.

Mr. Newens

The hon. Gentleman said earlier that if there were a Conservative Government there would probably be no metrication at all. Will he clarify the position? If the Conservatives become responsible, shall we still have the cut-off dates or not?

Mr. Lamont

The hon. Gentleman must not put words into my mouth. I said that in relation to prescribed quantities we would see what happened. We will tell him precisely what we think of the Bill on Third Reading. We will explain our attitude to the principle of the measure. He was not a member of the Committee but even he must notice that we strongly object to the principle of conversion.

I return to the amendment. We agree with the Minister's proposal. On the understanding that his undertaking is absolutely copper-bottomed we shall not move Amendment No. 16.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser

It would be discourteous if I did not reply to the hon. Members for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) and Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont). I know of no shops from which I buy both fish and sweets at the same time. If they exist, I do not buy fish or sweets in them.

Much of the greengrocery and fruit trade is carried on not by combines but by those with their own businesses, or corner shops. That is also largely true of the sale of fresh meat and fish. I hope my undertaking covers the area about which the public is concerned.

I was asked to give an example, apart from sugar, of a product which has gone or is going metric but which is still weighed out. Confectionery is a good example. From the beginning of next year most sales of prepacked confectionery will be in metric quantities and they will be sold alongside weighed-out quantities. I agree that there could be confusion if imperial and metric measurements are used side by side.

The National Federation of Scale and Weighing Machine Manufacturers takes the view that there would be a large degree of metrication effort for butchers, greengrocers, fruiterers and fishmongers. It believes that relatively less metrication effort is required in the confectionery and tobacco trades, the reason being that the scales used in confectionery shops are uncomplicated and can be converted quickly. I do not want to make a judgment, but whatever sector is involved there will be extensive consultation and I hope that that will reassure hon. Members.

Mr. Giles Shaw

The Minister must be clear about the size of the problem. About 28 per cent. of confectionery is sold by weigh-out. Even though small shops may use unsophisticated and easily-converted scales, we are talking of nearly 2,000 million sales of quarter-pound quantities. Confusion will be caused particularly if in adjacent shops some goods are sold in imperial quantities and others in metric quantities near the cut-off date. I welcome the Minister's decision to consult.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Forward to