Marks of Origin (Hansard, 20 March 1984)

§ Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Bristol, East)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the prominent indelible marking or permanent affixing on all mechanical or electrical goods, over a certain value, of the flag of origin of the country that provides the highest content by value of the goods, excluding final assembly. Despite its long description, the purpose and the application of the Bill are straightforward. The principle that I wish to establish in support of the Bill is one of effective consumer information. As we are prohibited from restrictive trade practices by EEC and GATT regulations, it is essential that I start by showing why this measure would not constitute a breach of those regulations. Although I hope that improved consumer knowledge will cause a shift towards British-produced goods, it is necessary that I show that this measure is equitable.

I suggest that it can be shown that this Bill is a consumer protection rather than a trade protection measure, as surveys before the Trade Descriptions (Origin Marking) (Miscellaneous Goods) Order 1981, as well as the Gallup poll of 1982, show that the overwhelming majority of consumers not only favour but are in urgent need of better origin marking. Our personal experience shows that a British name does not always mean British goods. For instance, we all know the name of Vauxhall, a well-known, so-called British manufacturer, but I have here a large advertisement for a Vauxhall Carlton car which is not British but completely made in Germany. Electronic goods often have so many stickers and labels on them that it is difficult to determine the country of origin even when the origin marking is in English and the label not hidden or torn.

The use that consumers make of the flag of origin on goods is their own business, but I believe that if they are reminded that every £35,000 worth of imported goods means the loss of one man's job for a year, that the proportion of consumer spending on imported goods is 25 per cent. and that import penetration in key areas of our economy is damaging that economy it may persuade them to buy British. I suggest that up till now there has been a lack of origin marking, and consumers have not been able to make the informed choice that they have the right to make. I hope that the existing trade descriptions legislation that will in the summer be considered in the European court will be successfully defended. But I would ask that the Government consider adding to the 1981 order the use of the flag of origin. The final proof that this Bill is not a trade protection measure must be that we have no objection to other countries taking similar measures.

The French and the Danes have had to withdraw their origin marking. However, the Community should be forward looking and I suggest that there is no reason why the EEC should not welcome a standardised system of marking by coloured flags. It is a better standardised system because it is not subject to language barriers. If it enables British or European consumers to choose British or European goods rather than Japanese or far eastern goods we should all be well satisfied.

To show that indelible flag marking is desirable, I shall refer to the existing legislation and show why that has many short comings. First, the Trade Descriptions (Origin 912 Marking) (Miscellaneous Goods) Order 1981 does not cover mechanical goods. Secondly, it is not sufficiently effective. It states that goods to which the order applies are marked or accompanied by a clear indication of origin'". That is a sensible idea, but it does not work, because nowhere in the legislation is the method stated, and the methods used are so varied that in a substantial purchase, with a mass of other information, no one recognises the origin, and we have not acquired the habit of checking for the origin of products.

If an indelible and prominent flag—and by "prominent" I mean on a surface visible when the article is in use—were placed on these goods, the consumer would be helped by the simplicity of the measure to look automatically for the country of origin, and this knowledge would become part of the purchasing decision. The value of permanent indelible marking is, in essence, that it gives an awareness of origin. It will affect the pattern of choice and remind people of the responsibility that they bear as consumers in our economy. It will also ensure that people who buy goods from overseas will have continually to justify their purchase of goods other than British or EEC products. I beleive that this is a good thing.

An objection may be that a flag is disfiguring. However, paper labels stuck on with non-water-soluble glues are often far more disfiguring and flying the flag is most unlikely to be disfiguring on the front of a car or by the switches of an electrical machine.

This Bill asks for indelible or permanently affixed markings. By doing so it shifts the responsibility to the manufacturer, whereas the current position is that it is the retailer who is responsible. So this simplification of industrial bureaucracy would offset any marginal price increase that the affixing of a flag might cause.

It is also important to realise that there is the option of a permanently affixed flag or an indelible mark. Therefore, the home supplier who had a large export market would be able to mark goods destined for the home market but not those destined for overseas.

Any trade description measure must face up to the reality that complete items are often made up of parts of different origins. The Bill recognises that by stating that the country of origin is that which supplies the highest content by value, excluding final assembly and profit margin. In other words, the Union Jack will be on principally British goods, not on those just assembled in Britain. The present criterion of "last substantial change" leaves the door wide open for the foreign components to be assembled here and sold as British goods, and that is a profound fault in the present legislation.

This is not a trade restriction measure. It is an equitable trade information measure. If it helps us to identify United Kingdom and European goods and to promote sates of United Kingdom and European goods, and helps the consumer to contribute to the creation of jobs in this country and Europe, I am sure that we shall all be well satisfied.

I commend the Bill to the House.