ORIGIN MARKING (Hansard, 11 June 1980)

§ Mr. Selwyn Gummer (Eye)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the marking of all goods sold in the United Kingdom with a clear statement of the country of origin and whether they are made in whole or in part within the European Economic Community. This is a consumer protection measure. The intention is to ensure that the housewife or the purchasing officer knows where a product is made. It is introduced in the full knowledge that the Government have already moved a long way in this direction.

I support the measures already announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs and the steps she is taking to ensure that at least in some of these areas people know where the goods that they are buying were made.

There seem to be me to be three reasons why the Bill is important. They were reasons that the Moloney committee overlooked or reasons that did not exist when that committee reported and the previous Labour Government decided to get rid of the protection that I should like to reintroduced.

First, it is important that people should be able to choose. I do not believe in the introduction of import controls. In fact, I believe that that would be a disastrous course for this country to follow. But people should be able to make their own choice about goods on grounds that they decide are important and not that someone else decides are important for them.

There are many people—recent surveys show that this number is increasing—who want to buy goods from a particular country or area of organ. Sometimes they will wish not to buy British. That is their right and opportunity. I believe that this country would benefit considerably if consumers decided that British was best, but that is for them to decide ; it is not for the Government or anyone else to impose. Therefore, it is important that people should be able to choose whether to buy British or not. Those who support the European Community may wish to buy goods made 572 within or outside the Community. It is for them to choose. Others may take the opposite decision.

The second reason is that there is a good deal of misleading information of this kind, which should be stopped. A manufacturer of pianos in my constituency has pointed out that, as the Germans have a fine reputation for making pianos, many now on the market are produced not in Germany but in countries behind the Iron Curtain, and given German-sounding names. Therefore, the Steinbeck and the Bechsburgh pianos, made in Czechoslovakia, East Germany or in other countries beyond the Iron Curtain, have come on to the market and, some of us would say, have been dumped in this country. Such pianos give the impression of being German, because they do not have to display the fact that they are made in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, or wherever it may be.

This situation is particularly true of the cutlery industry. Goods wholly manufactured in Taiwan, for example, are dipped and boxed in Britain, and "Made in England" or "Made in Sheffield" is stamped upon them. That seems unacceptable, and it would be made impossible by the kind of legislation that I should like to introduce.

The third reason, which is often overlooked, is none the less important. There are many instances when the country of origin makes a difference to the nature of the goods. I do not wish to dwell too much on this point, but many people are unhappy about the way in which the French, for example, feed geese to produce paté de fois gras. I should like to know whether the product is made in France for that reason.

There is another matter that particularly concerns me. The Soviet Government are busy locking up Christian dissidents and dumping Christmas cards in this country unmarked with their country of origin. No Christian in this country ought to buy Christmas cards manufactured in Russia. We ought to know whether they are manufactured in Russia so that we can not only refuse to buy them but tell shopkeepers why we refuse to buy them. This legislation would give us the opportunity to make that decision.

This is not a proposal in restraint of trade. The only argument that it might restrain trade is that the consumer is 573 better left in ignorance. That may have been good enough for the Moloney committee, but it does not seem to be good enough for us today. I believe that the consumer is best able to make his or her own choice. The consumer needs only the protection of accurate information. It is the duty of this House to ensure that the consumer gets such information. The Bill would enable that to be done by consultation, industry by industry, and an agreed code of practice, which would be enforceable.

It would be done by using the method already used for goods produced in a number of different fibres, on which there is a small label saying "20 per cent. viscose, 40 per cent. Terylene, 40 per cent. cotton". That would cover a product that was made in a number of different places. One would be able to see that a car that claimed to be British might be 93 per cent. made in Germany. It would be done within wide bands, so that it would not be too difficult, it would not refer to any amount less than 20 per cent. and it would be a burden upon the manufacturer and importer, not the retailer.

I believe that this is a timely Bill to introduce. There is a feeling in this country that the consumer should have interests other than those that result directly from advertising. Many people would like to make decisions based not 574 only on price but on where the goods were made, where the employment was provided, and on the quality. Although certain professional consumer protection agencies are not tremendously enthusiastic about this idea, I believe that most have slopped opposing it. I believe that the housewife and the purchasing officer certainly want to know where goods are manufactured. If not, they need take no notice of it. However, if they do, they have a right to know.

It is for those reasons that I ask the House to give me leave to bring in the Bill.