WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 20 December 1960 vol 227 cc865-904

3 51 pm.

House again in Committee.

Debate on Amendment No. 128 resumed.

LORD AMWELL

I rise to support the Amendment of Lord Stonham because I feel that it would be a great mistake to put upon the retailer the onus in regard to such things as evaporation and so forth. It is perfectly unworkable and unfair. I speak from personal experience. In my younger days I was for eleven years behind the counter, and I know the kind of dodges to which we had to resort in order to sustain a balance in regard to this particular question of evaporation which is affected by the atmosphere and humidity, or whatever it might be, of the shop itself, apart from any other considerations.

I was employed on the retail side of the tobacco industry. In those days the greater proportion of tobaccos were sold in bulk and not in packages. Of course, they evaporated rapidly, especially in wintertime when there was a lot of gas light—in those days there was not much electricity—and a lot of heat. So we sprayed the tubs of tobacco and used all sorts of other devices—even putting raw vegetables in among the loose tobacco to keep it moist. I fear that if the onus is put upon the retailer all sorts of unfair and unreasonable devices will be resorted to because of the un workability of the alternative. I hope that the Committee will accept this Amendment.

LORD SALTOUN

I have listened with great interest to the two speeches that have been made, and, as I always do. with great attention to what Lord Stonham said. It seems to me that there is one difficulty if the net weight on packing includes, as he says, the weight of some cellular matter, some salts and water, and immediately after the packing is complete evaporation starts and continues all the time until the contents of the package undergo some other process. Let us take the case of sprouts. The sprouts come into the shops. They are evaporating quickly and, after they have been a long time in the shop, they have evaporated considerably. I submit to the noble Lord that there is a great difference between stale sprouts and fresh sprouts, and that at any rate if the weight has to be made up the purchaser gets more cellular matter and more salts, even if the goods are stale. There is a great deal of difference between stale sprouts and fresh sprouts.

LORD STONHAM

Would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? Of course he is right, but in the case of sprouts the matter may be quite different. Sprouts would not go on losing weight permanently because, by the fourth day, they would be thrown away. We are only really considering relative weights as between 24 hours, 48 hours and 72 hours. Of course they would be stale, and they would be of less worth or unsaleable. Pre-packed sprouts would be quite fresh and saleable, but the retailer would be committing an offence if he sold them as being 1 lb. and they were in fact 14 oz.

LORD SALTOUN

That is what one hopes would happen, but I am not sure that it always does happen. The noble Lord, Lord Amwell, mentioned tobacco. I bought tobacco in those days, and I always put water with it to prevent it from deteriorating and becoming dust.

LORD OGMORE

I have listened with interest to this debate, and I must say that I have been rather concerned at two things said by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, one of them supported by the noble Lord, Lord Amwell. The first is the fact that probably this proposition is not practicable at all. The only way you can deal with this matter is in regard to the weight at the time the product is packed. If it is not a practical suggestion in the Bill, then I think the Government ought to go into it most carefully. I support the view of Lord Stonham. It seems to me, from what has been said, that his is the only practical course. The other point is equally important. Here I speak purely as a consumer of soft fruit, and not in any way as a packer or processor. What concerns me is the thought that this fruit might be dipped in water and that some foreign bodies may be introduced. That is rather disturbing. First of all, it detracts immediately from any safeguard the public has as to weight, which is the main object of this Bill; and secondly—

LORD AMWELI

May I correct the noble Lord upon that matter? I did not say that the foreign bodies were incorporated in the tobacco. The raw vegetables were put in to keep the tobacco moist as time went on. They certainly were not incorporated.

LORD OGMORE

I take it that the purpose was the same—to keep the tobacco fresh and to introduce moisture into it which was not otherwise there. The point I am making is that this water which is being introduced may not be at all clean; it may be dirty water. There is the point of view of health. I can imagine that in some shop establishments late at night there might not be any great regard for cleanliness. Soft fruit is often not boiled or cooked in any way before it is eaten, and I would suggest that that is another point which the Minister might consider. It concerns the consuming public very much, and I think it has not been raised before during the progress of this debate.

THE MARQUESS OF AILSA

I, too, have listened with great interest to all that has been said on this subject. As some of your Lordships may know, I have some experience in this matter and I agree with all that Lord Stonham has had to say, except with regard to one aspect. He has spoken from the point of view of pre-packing and, in his opinion, the net weight should be that at the time of packing. That is all very nice for the self-service stores and supermarkets, but not all vegetables are sold through that kind of store. There is still the person who obtains his vegetables from the local vegetable market and retails them across the counter.

LORD STONHAM

In that case there is no difficulty at all; you will get net weight just as happens now.

THE MARQUESS OF AILSA

I agree that you get net weight; but there is a subtle difference about pre-packed net weight. A customer may go into a supermarket and, if the noble Lord's Amendment is agreed to, buy a pre-packed package of sprouts, taking 1 lb. as the weight, but in fact, through evaporation, that weight is now only 14 oz. If he goes to the shop across the street and buys from the retailer at net weight he is getting the 16 oz. Yet he is paying, one presumes, the 1 lb. price for the 14 oz. and it causes discrepancy at this point. The only suggestion I can make to alleviate that is for the net weight at the time of packing and the date of packing also to be included, which would give the customer some idea of the amount of deterioration to expect, and what he was purchasing.

4.0 p.m.

LORD ST. OSWALD

Lord Stonham has already announced that this is the point at which he makes his stand on what is undoubtedly the main difference between us; and in discussing the Amendment he has chosen I must point out that the joint effect of these Amendments would be to require the many fresh fruits and vegetables listed in paragraph 3 of this Part of the Schedule, when sold loose by retail, to be sold by net weight only, except for the larger fruits and vegetables—here called "countable produce "—which could be sold by number also. The Amendments clearly are also designed to require these fruits and vegetables, when pre-packed, to be marked with their net weight at the time of packing, again with the alternative of marking pre-packed countable produce with its number.

There was what appeared to me to be a small irrelevance in what the noble Lord. Lord Stonham, said. He seemed to assume that the Bill required pre-packed fruit and vegetables to be marked with their weight, but in fact it does not do this, provided that the weight of the containers is within defined limits. All that is required is for the retailer to make the weight known to his customer. In any case, I find it difficult to visualise that an obligation to sell at retail by net weight could be satisfactorily complied with by the marking of weights which might no longer be correct at the time of sale; and according to the noble Lord, they would not be. On the substance of the proposals, Her Majesty's Government feel that they would be unsatisfactory in respect of both the sale of loose articles and the sale of pre-packs.

As regards loose sales it seems essential to allow the retailer, as the present drafting of the Bill does, to weigh the goods in at least a lightweight paper bag. It would be unhygienic and detrimental to their quality to require, say, soft fruits or peaches to be weighed on the machine without a protective paper bag—the same machine that might also have to be used for weighing onions or leeks, again without a paper bag.

LORD STONHAM

Onions, leeks and peaches can in any case be sold as countable produce and would not have to be weighed.

LORD ST. OSWALD

I mentioned those as examples. They can be sold as countable produce but also by weight. As regards pre-packed sales, the Government cannot accept that the marking of the weight when packed is a satisfactory protection to the consumer. Many of these articles are highly evaporable, and lose a good deal of weight during distribution. Also, the soft fruits particularly need air to breathe, and are thus normally packed in open-topped punnets, from which anyone along the line of distribution can help himself to a strawberry or two if he wishes. It would be a curious form of protection which left the consumer with the problem of assessing the extent to which the weight of the goods might have diminished since the time of packing, either from natural causes or from pilferage. It would also be a form of protection which would pose a difficult enough problem for the inspectors who had to enforce it in respect of home packed produce; and it could not be enforced at all in respect of imported produce which had been prepacked and marked overseas.

It would indeed be an odd form of consumer protection which prevented the ordinary greengrocer from including the weight of a ¼ ounce paper bag in the pound of fruit or vegetables he is selling loose, so as to keep his scales clean, while allowing the prepacker to offer as 1 lb. goods which weighed much less than 15¾ ounces by the time they reached the consumer. It should be noted that the ordinary retailer is selling by the weight at the time of sale, not the weight that the produce may have had some time before when it was harvested. To make a distinction between loose and pre-packed sales would prevent the consumer from making an effective comparison between the two.

As drafted, and subject to the prescribed container allowances, the Bill will give the public the right to know the weight of the produce at the time at which it is sold to them. This is the weight in which the buyer is most interested; and the Government believe that this is the point on which to concentrate in those cases where the Bill is dealing with highly evaporable pre-packed articles which the packer cannot reasonably be required to mark in the ordinary way. I repeat: this is the point at issue between us. I think the point on which to concentrate is that the public should have the right to know the weight of the product at the time at which it is sold to them.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

Of course, everybody wishes to have the most desirable protection possible for the consumer; but the customer also likes service; and it is the great success of the self-service organisations in the last five years that has led to almost a revolution in retail distribution. The whole question is whether they can give that kind of service at the same kind of price if they are not to be able to gain by having fewer assistants working in that type of store than would normally be applied per £1 of sales in a small private shop. That is the only way in which they can make it pay. I do not think Her Majesty's Government have really fully considered the objective in this. We want to give the consumer a square deal. We want to ensure a practical way of doing business where the customer expects to find wrapped goods from which he or she can select, with self-service; and Her Majesty's Government are making no attempt to meet that.

From what the noble Lord the Minister has said I see that Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to give way on this Amendment, and therefore the only course is to go to a Division on it, at this time, so that when the matter comes to another place it can be considered again and proper attention can be given to what are the future issues of the trade.

4.17 p.m.

LORD STONHAMmoved, in paragraph 4 (c), to leave out "six" and insert "eight" [articles]. The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 130, standing in my name and the names of my noble friends. The Government in this pant of the Bill have very wisely excluded from the duty to mark the contents on the container those packages of vegetables or fruit containing not more than six articles in cases where the package is such that the articles can be clearly seen by the purchaser. That is very welcome and very sensible. But in these transparent packages the number of the contents can be easily assessed up to a total of eight. We feel that it is highly desirable that the permitted number should be increased from six to eight.

There are a number of reasons for this view. A strong one is that tomatoes, which are one of the most popular of

On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 49.

CONTENTS
Ailsa, M.	Henderson, L.	Pethick-Lawrence, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, V.	Killearn, L.	Rea, L.
Amwell, L.	Lambert, V.	Shackleton, L.
Auckland, L.	Latham, L.	Shepherd, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.]	Lawson, L.	Silkin, L.
Chorley, L.	Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Stonham, L.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Meston, L.	Taylor, L.
Crook, L.	Morrison of Lambeth, L.	Uvedale of North End, L
Faringdon, L.	Ogmore, L.	Wootton of Abinger, B.
Grantchester, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Freyberg, L.	Newton, L. [Teller.]
Ailwyn, L.	Geddes, L.	Pender, L.
Ashbourne, L.	Goschen, V.	Rank, L.
Balfour of Inchrye, L.	Hailsham, V. (L. President.)	Rathcavan, L.
Bathurst, E.	Hampton, L.	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Bossom, L.	Hawke, L.	St. Just, L.
Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.	Kilmuir, V.(L. Chancellor.)	St. Oswald, L.
Carrington, L.	Leconfield, L.	Salisbury, M.
Cholmondeley, M.	Mancroft, L.	Saltoun, L.
Cottesloe, L.	Margesson, V.	Somers, L.
Davidson, V.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.	Spens, L.
Derwent, L.	Merrivale, L.	Teviot, L.
Digby, L.	Mills, L.	Teynham, L.
Dundee, E.	Milverton, L.	Waldegrave, E.
Dynevor, L.	Morley, E.	Winterton, E.
Elton, L.	Newall, L.	Wolverton, L.
Fortescue, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

these packs in transparent containers, usually weigh eight fruits to the pound in the most popular size when graded. If a marking or ticket is required with packs of eight but not with packs of six tomatoes, the tendency will be for an approximate quantity of three-quarters of a pound to be packed. This might well mislead the housewife, because with six articles in it there will be no need to put a count on them because they will be seen, and there will be no need to weigh or mark with the weight because they are countable produce. Therefore, it is in the interests of the housewife and of the trade that the number of eight should be permitted.

Then, again, in the case of many types of countable produce, particularly dessert apples and oranges, as well as tomatoes, with the type of pack which is usually employed the fruits can be set out in a single row or double row—two fours or straight along—and it is very easy, therefore, to assess at a glance with eight articles (just as easy as with six) how many articles there are in a pack. I am quite sure that when the Government included this provision that six articles in a transparent package will not require either a mark of the number or a mark of the weight, they did it with the object in mind of cutting out any unnecessary restriction. Therefore, since this figure of eight will, for technical reasons, he a much more suitable one—and, indeed, will avoid the possibility of three-quarters of a pound of tomatoes being sold to the housewife, giving the impression that she is getting her old pack of about a pound —I think it should be accepted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 67, line 11, leave out ("six") and insert ("eight").—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD ST. OSWALD

Containers of pre-packed fruit and vegetables range from cellophane bags and cardboard boxes to nets and other methods, and there is no guarantee that the goods will be tidily arranged so that the customer can count them at a glance. Where they are in fact jumbled together in a net, for example, six are about the most that the purchaser can be expected to size up quickly. That was the advice I received on reading the noble Lord's Amendment, hut, in order that I should feel capable of confronting him, this morning, at an early hour, I hung eight tomatoes in a bag. Perhaps I am less nimble than the noble Lord, but I did my best to look at that bag from every direction, and without taking them out of the bag, I was unable to tell whether there were seven, eight or nine tomatoes. If the noble Lord asks me to look at this again, creak though my bones will, I shall, of course, do it; but I doubt if I shall get any better view of eight tomatoes than I did this morning, and I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Amendment.

LORD STONHAM

The case that the noble Lord has put up does not satisfy the provisions of the paragraph. I shall have to read it to him. Paragraph 4 (c) exempts from the requirements of this Bill: a pre-packed collection of not more than six articles of countable produce…if the container is such that the nature and number of those articles can be clearly seen by a prospective purchaser. It is perfectly obvious that the container which the noble Lord saw this morning did not satisfy the provisions, and I do urge that, when we table an Amendment, it should be taken seriously and looked at properly. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for tramping around the markets and buying eight tomatoes, and then jumbling them up in a bag. But he should not have jumbled them up in bag; he should have put them in a container where they could all be clearly seen. I am saying to your Lordships, quite seriously, that this is a technical matter; and, if I may say so with respect, it is a matter I understand. Here we are talking about a container of a standard size which is in normal use at the present time, a transparent container, which is in fact made for eight articles such as tomatoes. All I am really asking is that, since the Government concede the principle of this—they think it is a desirable principle—they should make the number eight instead of six. But at all times the pack must satisfy the provision that the articles can be clearly seen by a prospective purchaser.

We are wholly with the Government on this matter. All we are asking is not that anybody should jumble something up in such a way that it is like a lucky dip and the customer does not know what he is getting, but that the articles should be clearly seen. With tomatoes, eight come to roughly a pound, and we want the customer to get a pound or thereabouts. That is why we ask that this change should be made. It seems perfectly reasonable, and I am astonished that the Minister is not in a position to accept it immediately.

LORD ST. OSWALD

It may well be that the noble Lord's container was better designed than mine, but the fact is that neither I nor my advisers have seen or are familiar with such a container, and the ones that they have seen do not permit of the easy counting of more than six tomatoes. Nor did the one that I examined this morning. If he can provide me with or show me one of the containers he describes, then very possibly we can meet him. Perhaps we can arrange that between us.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I still do not understand the attitude of the Government. How slow and dense they are!

LORD ST. OSWALD

I am sorry.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

It still lies in the hands of the inspectors to be able to prosecute if the articles cannot be clearly seen. Do read the paragraph in your own Bill: then you would not bother with things like this. It lies with the people who have the control of the administration to decide whether it can be clearly seen or not. We say that you should increase the number to eight because there are many articles sold in containers holding eight items in them which can all be clearly seen.

LORD ST. OSWALD

We have yet to be introduced to such a container; and I assure your Lordships that we are taking this perfectly seriously.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

It shows that you are legislating without any knowledge, or without a real attempt to get knowledge.

LORD STONHAM

I do not like to leave this matter here. As my noble Leader says, it is not for me to produce a container, although I can. It is surely for the Government to ask the traders to satisfy the conditions of the Bill when it becomes an Act. They will produce the containers if they are permitted to pack eight articles in them. We do not expect the noble Lord or the officials in his Department to hunt round the stores of the pre-packers to find one —will this do, or will that do? That is not part of their job. All I am asking is that the Bill be amended to permit eight articles to be packed where the contents can be clearly seen. It is then up to the industry to provide the packages. I am telling the noble Lord that, from the standpoint of the purchaser and of the housewife, this is a desirable Amendment. It is not our business to find a container, although I will do it, of course. That is not the point: the point is that we are asking for an Amendment of the Bill: the industry will do the rest. I do not want to divide on a point like this, but I hope the noble Lord will be able to say that he will give the closest consideration to this point, and not concern himself with whether or not he can find a container.

LORD ST. OSWALD

I have already said that I will give consideration to it, and I have already said why, until that consideration has been given, we cannot accept it at the moment.

LORD STONHAM

On that understanding from the noble Lord, that he will give it that consideration, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.28 p.m.

LORD STONHAM

The Bill as it stands at present exempts bunched carrots from its provisions. Bunched carrots are usually those little, sweet and succulent ones that we get in the spring. They are small ones and are bunched up; and, for obvious reasons which we wholly support, they are exempted from the provisions requiring them either to be counted or weighed or numbered. But, for exactly the same reasons, bunched beetroots and bunched turnips are also sold in that way, and since bunched carrots are exempted we feel that bunched beetroots and bunched turnips (which are again the small ones bunched together by their stalks or leaves), should also be included there and should be added to subsection (d) of paragraph 4. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 67, line 16, at end insert ("bunched beetroots and hunched turnips").—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD ST. OSWALD

The term "bunched carrots" is a trade term describing young carrots, I understand, tied together by their foliage. I am happy to say that, in the matter of bunched beetroots and bunched turnips, the noble Lord and I are in complete harmony, and I accept his Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Fifth Schedule (continued):

PART VIII

Miscellaneous foods to be sold by or marked with net weight and to be pre-packed only in fixed quantities

1. This Part of this Schedule applies to the following foods, that is to say—

1. (a)cereal breakfast foods in flake form, other than cereal biscuit breakfast foods;

2. Subject to paragraph 3 of this Part of this Schedule, goods to which this Part of this Schedule applies—

1. (a)unless pre-packed, shall be sold by retail only by net weight;
2. (b)shall be pre-packed only—
1. (i) in one of the following quantities by net weight, that is to say, two, four, eight or twelve ounces, one pound, one and a half pounds, or a multiple of one pound; and
2. (ii) in a container marked with an indication of quantity by net weight.

4.30 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERDmoved, in paragraph 1 (a), to leave out all words after "breakfast foods". The noble Lord said: In face of the previous Amendment, I rise with renewed hope. I beg to move Amendment No. 132, and, with the permission of the Committee, perhaps it will be convenient if I also speak to Amendment No. 145. Both Amendments deal with cereal breakfast foods.

Paragraph 1 of Part VIII of the Fifth Schedule applies to various goods, such as cereal breakfast foods in flake form, other than cereal biscuit breakfast foods. The articles included in paragraph I are to be sold by net weight and are to be pre-packed in fixed quantities. I am not quite sure why the Government have included the words "in flake form". As the Government must be aware, there is now a large and increasing range of breakfast cereal foods, and to my knowledge there is only one well-known brand which is in flake form. However, there are many other types of break fast foods which are not biscuit and which are not flake, and my noble friends feel that this type should not be excluded from the provisions of this Bill. We feel that all breakfast foods, irrespective of their presentation, should be included in the Bill, and should be sold by net weight and pre-packed in fixed quantities.

Amendment No. 145 refers to the case where cereal breakfast foods in biscuit form must be sold by number. I have in mind shredded wheat. I believe that is included in the definition of "biscuit foods". I do not see any reason why those should not be sold by net weight, and therefore, in speaking to my second Amendment, I would point out that what I want to achieve is to remove from the Bill the requirement for these to be sold by number. They should be in the provisions of Part VIII so that they are sold by net weight. I do not think there is any difficulty here. It gives the consumer some protection, because, unlike the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Stonham that referred to biscuit foods sold by sight or by number, the consumer will not be able to have sight of them when they are in a carton. The manufacturers of the biscuit type of cereal could well reduce the size of the biscuit without the public being aware that they were buying an article which was lower in weight than it should be. Therefore I submit to the Committee that, under Part VIII of this Bill, we should include cereal breakfast foods of all categories, and that all these should be sold by net weight and pre-packed in fixed quantities. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 67, line 46, leave out all words after breakfast foods."—(Lord Shepherd.)

LORD HAWKE

The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has spotted the same flaw in the Bill which I noticed and which I sought to remedy by the next Amendment on the Order Paper. I hope the Government will be able to accept something in the form of the Amendment that the noble Lord has down, and include in the Bill cereal foods in addition to flakes, which I suppose could be held to mean all those things known as "crispies" of various sorts. I agree that shredded wheat is hardly a flake or a biscuit, and grape nuts definitely seem to me to be neither of the two.

4.35 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

Part VIII of the Schedule, as it is now drafted, requires only those pre-packed breakfast foods which are in flake form to be sold or marked with their net weight and to be pre-packed in certain specified quantities. The Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Hawke, to leave out "in flake form", would apply these requirements to all cereals other than those in biscuit form. Thus my noble friend would bring in such cereals as sugarised puffs and the bran varieties. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, goes further still: it would apply this requirement to all breakfast cereals, including those in biscuit form.

I should just like to say a word about the biscuit form cereals first, because I think there are special arguments against requiring cereal breakfast foods in biscuit form to be pre-packed in specified quantities. These edible articles—whatever you call them—are often of a highly friable and fragile nature, and in the process of modern, high-speed packing, which saves so much time and which often has the effect of enabling the article to be sold at a lower price, small bits sometimes crumble off, and it is impossible for the packer to guarantee the actual weight which gets into the packet without slowing up his machinery to an extent that might price these goods out of the market. Therefore, the present practice of requiring them merely to be marked with their number, which Part XI of this Schedule proposes to continue and from which the noble Lord says he is proposing to omit these articles, does at least give the purchaser an indication of the number of breakfast helpings he can rely on the package to give him.

With regard to the other enlargements which would be brought, both by my noble friend Lord Hawke and by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, into the present context, I would point out that it is only cereals in flake form which have traditionally come to be packed to a specified range of weights and which the consumer has accordingly come to expect in those weights. When you come to cereals in shredded form, like bran, or in puffed or sugarised form, they have not been traditionally sold in specified weights. If we were to require them to be sold in this way, it might again put up costs as against the consumer. For example, there are some firms who use standard packs for a wide range of these foods, and the packs are designed, at the half-pound mark, to take exactly half a pound of flakes; but they might hold in fact 18 oz. of the bran varieties and 9½ oz. of the puffed rice varieties, to name only two out of a large number of different varieties which are sold. If all these varieties had to be pre-packed to specified weights, there would have to be a different-sized container for each of them at each specified weight. The consumers, many of whom change from one variety to another, could not tell at a glance the quantity they were getting or the size of the packet, as one can in the case of sugar and tea.

I would submit to your Lordships—and it is a consideration which applies to a number of other Amendments, which we shall soon come to on the Paper—that the requirement to pre-pack in specified weights is one which is used only sparingly in this Bill. I would suggest to your Lordships that it is a requirement which ought to be used very sparingly, and that we ought not to add to it without strong reasons. I say this because there is always the danger that such a step will react to the disadvantage of the consumer by preventing the packer from achieving economies in production or utilising standard-sized packs for a variety of goods of different densities.

LORD SHEPHERD

I thank the noble Earl for his full reply. If I understand him aright, it is more for technical reasons than on principle that the Government do not accept my Amendment. I can see the noble Earl's point that breakfast cereals should be in a container of specified size, but I think that he would agree that, even if cereals require boxes of a certain size, the net weight should be clearly stamped on the box. If the noble Lord will consider whether all breakfast foods should be clearly stamped with the net weight, I think we shall have gone some way towards giving consumer protection.

I forgot to raise another point when I spoke earlier. Does the net weight include the free gifts which some companies are distributing as inducements to children to demand of their mothers that they should have that brand of cereal at the breakfast table. Are these small plastic toys treated in the same way as wrapper allowance and included in the net weight? If we are going to have these goods clearly stamped, as we hope we shall, I hope that it will not include the weight of any free gifts given to the purchaser. I beg the noble Earl to look at this matter again. All these cereals should be stamped with the net weight and there should be no differentiation between flakes and biscuits.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

One of the noble Earl's arguments struck me as rather difficult to understand. He talked about the biscuit type of breakfast food which is friable—that is, liable to crumble—and which for that reason is easier to package by number than by weight. The fact that the pieces of biscuit have crumbled in the course of packing and transport from the factory makes it all the more important that the housewife should know how much she is getting. It is no good getting six helpings of breakfast food if each helping is half the size it ought to be. If weight were made the factor, she would then know how much she was getting.

LORD FARINGDON

I, too, was puzzled by one of the noble Earl's arguments. He said that though foods were contained in standard packages, owing to their nature it was impossible for the housewife to know exactly how much there was of the food she was buying. Surely this is an argument against him and for the proposal that packages should be stamped.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My argument was that if they had to be sold by net weight, the result might be increased expense and delay in packing. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked about breakfast foods being marked with their net weight. Biscuits have to be marked by their number, not weight, but other breakfast foods have to be marked with their net weight. I will look into the point about gifts in packages and consider how it bears on the general question.

LORD HAWKE

I am satisfied by my noble friend's explanation. I had overlooked the fact that these foods would have to be packed in specified weights. Therefore I think that the arguments he used about packing makes the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and myself rather unnecessary.

LORD SHEPHERD

On condition that the noble Earl will look at this matter, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.45 p.m.

LORD FARINGDON

I trust that your Lordships will not allow yourselves to be influenced against this Amendment and No. 136 which, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to take with it, since they cover exactly the same point. I can well understand noble Lords not feeling amiably disposed towards powdered tea or powdered coffee. I confess that I do not, but none the less I suggest that they should be included in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 1, which applies this part of the Schedule to tea, cocoa and cocoa powder, chocolate powder, and coffee, including coffee beans, ground coffee and mixtures of coffee and chicory. I think it is fairly clear that powdered tea and powdered coffee should also be included. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 68, line 1, after ("tea") insert ("(including powdered extracts of tea)").—(Lord Faringdon.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

As the noble Lord has pointed out the arguments for these two Amendments are very much the same, on both sides. As I submitted to your Lordships on the last Amendment, I would impress on you that the requirement to pre-pack in standard quantities is one that should be applied sparingly, and only when there are strong practical reasons for it from the point of view of consumer protection. Since the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926, and indeed since the days of the Hodgson Committee, pre-packaging has grown tremendously and has offered the public an ever-increasing range of foodstuffs in hygienic and convenient containers, which one did not have to anything like the same extent, even nine years ago. An important factor in securing economies in the cost of prepackaging is the freedom to use standard-sized containers, which can all pass through the same packing machines without adjustment and can be used for a variety of goods. But as most goods will tend to differ somewhat from each other in density, the widespread application of the requirement to pre-pack in standard weights articles which do not come under Part VIII would either destroy the economic advantages of standard-sized containers—which means that the public ultimately have to pay more—or else would lead to some containers being only partially filled, which is certain to arouse the public's suspicion that they are being misled or cheated. Although the Hodgson Committee recommended that rather more goods should be pre-packed in specified weights than the Bill in fact requires, they drew special attention to the economies which can he achieved by the standardisation of container sizes, and stressed that the Board of Trade should keep this aspect in mind in considering any further extension of this particular requirement about pre-packing.

The ordinary varieties of tea and coffee (not powder) have been required to be pre-packed in specified quantities for a long time since the 1926 Act. The public have undoubtedly come to expect them to be packed in the standard quantities, and it would not be a good thing if this requirement were now relaxed. Accordingly, this part of the Schedule preserves this requirement for ordinary tea and coffee. The powdered varieties have never had to be packed in standard quantities, and those members of the public who want to check the quantity are accustomed to looking at the marking on the container. Moreover, tea and certain kinds of coffee are still pre-packed in specialised paper packets; and since there is little question of these packets being used for other goods of differing densities, the requirement to pack in standard weights does not impose extra costs on the trade. But when we came to powdered extracts of tea and coffee, as the noble Lord knows, they are subject to dehydration, to a certain extent, in being powdered and, therefore, are very apt to attract moisture; and for that reason they are nearly always pre-packed in strong, rigid containers which are designed to keep out the air. It is precisely in this field of rigid containers that the economies of standard sizes can best be achieved by the pre-packaging industries and where a requirement for standard weights can most affect costs and can, in the long run, work to the disadvantage of the public.

LORD FARINGDON

I think the noble Earl has made a good case, so far as it goes, but I find myself rather puzzled. Why do the advantages or disadvantages of a particular type of pre-packing apply to tea powder and/or coffee powder, whereas they do not apply to cocoa powder or chocolate powder, which apparently are already on the list and are included in the Bill? I do not want to insist, but I cannot help feeling that the noble Earl may have been misguided on this matter. If, indeed, these other things can be packed in powder form, I can think of no good reason why tea and coffee should not also be packed with the net weight stamped on the outside of the package. However, if the noble Earl does not feel this is some- thing which he should take back I do not insist on this Amendment. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Latham has anything to say about it.

LORD LATHAM

I should like to say a few words. The question here is whether we should have standardisation of quantity or standardisation of container; and so far as the language of the Bill is concerned, the container seems to have won. Is there not another element in the objections put forward by the trade in this connection—namely, that they are ill-disposed towards having standard containers because they want to have an element of competition in quantity? The noble Earl referred to the comments of the Hodgson Committee; but having discussed the manufacturing difficulties, they went on to say: We recommend, however, that at the end of five years the Board of Trade should, in consultation with associations representing housewives, retailers and manufacturers, review the extent to which standardisation has taken place to decide what additional foods and household commodities normally retailed in rigid containers should, in the absence of any progress towards standardisation, be brought within this requirement. Can the noble Earl say whether consultations have taken place with housewives, or associations representing housewives, retailers and manufacturers on this? This is a question as to whether the consumer is prepared to pay a slight extra cost arising from a multiplicity of manufacture, instead of the line manufacture of mass production, in order to have the benefit of the guarantee of weight by standard quantities. I should be glad if the noble Earl will answer the points I have made in connection with the comments of the Hodgson Committee.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

Since the Hodgson Committee reported there have been great new developments in the prepackaging industry. The extent to which pre-packing is now undertaken brings to the retail trade and to consumers conveniences which are much more universal now than formerly. I mentioned in my remarks that the Hodgson Committee recommended that rather more goods should be pre-packed in specified weights than the Bill requires. But I also mentioned that they drew special attention to the economies which can be achieved by the standardisation of container sizes, and stressed that the Board of Trade should keep this aspect in mind in considering any further extension of this particular requirement.

With regard to the consumer being willing to pay more in order that goods should be packed in specified weights, we have no evidence that consumers are being deceived in regard to these commodities, and I think that to require powdered tea and powdered coffee to be pre-packed only in specified weights would mean a change in the packing lines of various brands which offer instant coffee in jars marked as containing 6 oz. net—6 oz. is not a specified weight. This is the sort of commodity where the position might be kept under review, but I think it would be a mistake to put it into this Schedule.

LORD FARINGDON

I cannot say that I am wholly satisfied, but, with your Lordships' permission, I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.59 p.m.

LORD SILKINmoved to add to paragraph 1: () butter, compound cooking fat, dripping, lard, margarine, shredded suet arid any mixture of butter and margarine; () dried fruits of any one or more of the follow-leg descriptions, that is to say, apples (including dried apple rings), apricots, currants, dates, figs, muscatels, nectarines, peaches, pears (including dried pear rings), prunes, raisins and sultanas; () dried fruit salad; () dried vegetables of any of the following descriptions, that is to say, beans, lentils and peas (including split peas); () barley kernels, pearl barley, rice (including ground rice and rice flakes), sago, semolina and tapioca; () flour or bean, maize, oats, pea, potato, rice, rye, bean or wheat; () flour products of any of the following descriptions, that is to say—

1. (i) cake flour, including cake mixtures and sponge mixtures;
2. (ii) cornflour, including blancmange powders and custard powders;
3. (iii) macaroni and similar products;
4. (iv) self-raising flour;

() oatflakes, oatmeals and rolled oats; () biscuits".

The noble Lord said: In moving this formidable-looking Amendment, I hope that the Committee will not feel that it is as difficult as it looks. Its purpose is to simplify the Bill. And the Bill is really becoming so complicated that I am bound to say that arty trader who is dealing with a variety of products, and has to comply with all kinds of different conditions as to packing, weights and so on, is going to find himself in considerable difficulty, as will the consumer who is seeking to see whether he or she is getting a fair deal in accordance with the Bill.

Here we have a number of different parts of the Fifth Schedule each dealing with commodities of an analogous character and requiring conditions of packaging which are slightly different. It seemed to me that it would be desirable to put them all under the same heading in one Part and, if necessary, make slight modifications so as to secure that the requirements of packing are applicable to all the products dealt with in the Bill. Incidentally, it will have the advantage, if the noble Earl is disposed to accept the Amendment, of making it unnecessary for me to move Amendments Nos. 142 and 143, to delete Parts IX and X. My broad case is that if all these products which I have enumerated were included in one Part, possibly with Part VIII modified appropriately, it would simplify the Bill. It would simplify the onerous burden being put upon the producer, and I think it would simplify it from the point of view of the consumer. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 68, line 9, at end insert the said subparagraphs.—(Lord Silkin)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I am grateful to the noble Lord for seeking to simplify the Bill, as indeed I should be grateful to anyone else who would seek to simplify it still further. This Amendment would most certainly produce a number of simplifications. It is concerned with three Parts of the Schedule. It shifts commodities from Parts IX and X into Part VIII. Perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me if, in replying to it, I anticipate some of the things he may wish to say in connection with his Amendment to leave out Parts IX and X, and also possibly on the next two Amendments Nos. 138 and 139. Because it seems to me that, at any rate in the way I look at it, the answer which I feel I ought to make to the noble Lord's Amendment embraces these other Amendments at the same time.

These Amendments would do four things. First of all, they would transfer the foods in Part IX into Parr VIII and, so far as that is concerned, there is only a small change made, because foods in Parts VIII and IX already have one common factor—that they are to be pre-packed in fixed quantities. Therefore the only difference the noble Lord would make here would be that, instead of being sold or marked with net weight or gross weight, they must be sold or marked with net weight. That is one thing that occurs. Then it transfers the food at present in Part X of the Schedule into Part VIII, which makes rather wider changes, because the foods in Part X are foods to be sold by or marked with net weight or gross weight, but not pre-packed in fixed quantities. If the Amendment were to be accepted, they would then have to be sold only by net weight and pre-packed in fixed quantities. Then the noble Lord is proposing in a later Amendment—to which the arguments, in my submission, are the same—to add biscuits to the list of foods in Part VIII. In his next Amendment, No. 138, the noble Lord seeks to empower the Board of Trade to add further foods to, or delete foods from, those listed in Part VIII by means of a statutory instrument which would be subject to the annulment procedure—that is, the Negative Resolution procedure.

The arguments on each of these four points should, I think, be treated separately. The foods which are to be transferred from Part IX change their status only in respect of being sold by net weight only. These are butter, margarine and cooking fats. Although nowadays they are not often sold loose in the shops, some trade is still conducted in that way, and Part IX follows the existing law in allowing the shopkeeper to include in the weighing the weight of a sheet of greaseproof paper. Without that allowance, he would be compelled to carry the portions of butter and other fats to the weighing machine without any protective covering, weigh them directly on the weighing pan without anything, underneath them, and then pick them up by hand in order to wrap them up, which would be inconvenient and not very clean.

The maximum weight of the wrapper in which, under Part IX, we allow these goods to be weighed, is the equivalent, as I pointed out to your Lordships on an earlier Amendment yesterday, of just under 2 per cent. of the total weight at the ½ lb. mark and about 1 per cent. at the 1 lb. mark. As I argued on a previous Amendment, we think that this permitted slight underweight on the foods themselves is a small price to pay for hygienic handling, as I think the Hodgson Committee acknowledged. And although the Committee did not favour extending the wrapper allowance to the goods when pre-packed in the factory, the Government do not feel they should introduce any form of discrimination between shop packing and factory packing in this matter.

Now let us come to Part X. Two changes are proposed here. The goods listed in Part X are to be sold and marked with net weight only, instead of the weight of a light bag or similar container to be taken into account in their weight and marking. As with butter and fats in Part IX, these goods in Part X, particularly the dried fruits, vegetables and grains, are still sold loose in certain areas in the shops, and here again it is recognised in the existing law that it would be inconvenient to prevent the shopkeeper from putting them into a paper bag for the purpose of weighing. The maximum weight of the container in which Part X would allow these goods to be weighed is the equivalent of a little over 3 per cent. of the total weight at the ½ lb. mark and just over 1½ per cent. at the 1 lb. mark. For these foods, also, the Hodgson Committee recognised the justification for a container allowance when they are weighed in the shops, and here again the Government do not think it would be right to introduce discrimination between shop packing and factory packing, so far as this allowance is concerned.

The other effect of taking these Part X goods and putting them into Part VIII would be to require them to be made up in specified weights only. That point I have discussed a good deal on the last two Amendments, and I will not repeat what I said. But we feel that the arguments which I advanced to your Lordships on the previous Amendments hold good here, too, and that we ought not to require goods to be sold only in specified weights unless there are strong and special reasons for doing so. There are some of the dried vegetable and grain products in this Part which have been required to be packed in specified weights since 1926, and some of the dried fruits since 1949. But the conditions of trade are changing, and these foods are coming more and more to be packed in cardboard cartons rather than in the old blue paper bags and the economic standardisation of the sizes of these cartons which can be used for a variety of these goods with different densities will be prevented, or severely handicappd, if the requirement to pack in specified weights is not relaxed.

The third main effect of the Amendment would be to require biscuits to be packed in specified weights instead of just being marked with their weight. Here again, the Hodgson Committee saw the unreasonableness of this. Within a packet of biscuits the weight of one biscuit can be quite an appreciable percentage of the total, and there can be no guarantee that any given whole number of biscuits will ever come out precisely at the specified weights of 4, 8, 12 oz. and so on.

Finally, the noble Lord proposes to give to the Board of Trade power to bring further foodstuffs within, or to exempt foodstuffs from, the scope of Pat VIII of the Schedule, by statutory instrument, subject only to the annulment procedure. As drafted, the Bill gives the Board of Trade power to do precisely this by means of an order made under subsection (2) of Clause 22; but the procedure, as defined in subsection (2) of Clause 55, requires such orders to be preceded by consultation with interested parties. Subsection (3) requires such Orders to be laid in draft before, and to be approved by a Resolution of, each House of Parliament.

We think (and I am sure that the noble Lord will not be unsympathetic to this because we have had long discussions before on the difference between Affirmative and Negative Resolutions) that these procedures are most necessary in the case of orders which can have a profound impact on the manufacturing processes, and on the production and distribution costs, of particular industries. We shall not hesitate to use these powers where there is a convincing case for doing so in the public interest. The industries concerned should have the right to know that matters can be threshed out thoroughly before the orders take effect, instead of after the possible damage has been done, as would be the case if the Negative Resolution procedure were adopted.

LORD SILKIN

The last point made by the noble Earl was an answer to an Amendment that I have not moved, but it is a perfectly good answer; and as a result of what he has said I do not now propose to move it. I accept also what he said about the other matter. If I were to press my Amendment I should be very happy to leave out "biscuits". I think it is much too detailed a matter to press this Amendment, and to try to argue in general the particular points which the noble Earl has mentioned. Having moved the Amendment, I am quite content to leave it and to ask the noble Earl whether it is possible to consider this point. I quite understand his argument that some of these goods are sold in one form and some are sold in another. When the Bill becomes law in its present form there will be great difficulty; because I cannot imagine any producer, still less any buyer, wading through these Schedules to see whether the particular commodity they are selling or buying comes within any particular Part of the Bill. Perhaps some other way could be devised, some simple Schedule in which everything could be contained with the requirements varied a little in individual cases. That would be much more likely to be observed than the Schedule as at present in the Bill. Having said that, and not asking the noble Earl to look at the matter again, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.15 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEEmoved, in paragraph 2 (b) (i) of Part VIII, after "say"to insert "one". The noble Earl said: this is an Amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Hawke to which my name has been added because we have decided to accept it. The Amendment relates to Part VIII of the Fifth Schedule which requires certain foods in everyday consumption to be pre-packed to a range of specified weights only. Most of these goods have been subject Ito this requirement since the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926; the object is to enable the shopper to see at a glance what weights the packages contain. The range of weights specified in the Bill is 2, 4, 8 and 12 ounces, 1 lb., 1½ lb. and multiples of 1 lb.; and there is a complete exemption for pre-packs weighing less than 1 ounce.

The Bill applies this requirement, however, to certain foods for the first time, notably to jam, marmalade, honey and jelly preserves. There is a specialised trade in these goods in one ounce packs for use at children's parties, and so on, which the Bill, as at present drafted, would stop. This is not justified, since these one ounce packs could hardly be used in any way to mislead the general public. The solution is, accordingly, as the Amendment proposes, to add "1 ounce" to the range of weights to which all the goods in this Part of the Schedule are permitted to be pre-packed. I am sorry that I have to put the case instead of my noble friend. He explained to me that he would be absent for a short time but he said he would be back in the next hour.

Amendment moved—

Page 68, line 16, after ("say") insert ("one").—(The Earl of Dundee.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

This Amendment is consequential on the previous one. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 68, line 23, leave out ("one") and insert ("half an").—(The Earl of Dundee.)

Amendment agreed to.

Fifth Schedule (continued):

PART IX

Miscellaneous foods to be sold by or marked with net weight or gross weight and to be pre-packed only in fixed quantities

LORD SILKINhad given Notice of his intention to move to leave out Part IX. The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment which I withdrew, No. 137. In withdrawing it I said that I was not asking the noble Earl to give an undertaking. Nevertheless, I hope it will be possible to simplify the Parts of the Fifth Schedule, which is really a most compli- cated business and will, I am sure, remain a dead letter if it is passed in its present form. I asked for no undertaking; but, nevertheless, I hope that at some stage in the future of the Bill there will be simplification of the Parts of the Fifth Schedule generally. I therefore do not move this Amendment.

LORD LATHAMmoved in paragraph 2 (b), leave out "sold" and insert weighed for the determination of the purchase price in the presence of the buyer".

The noble Lord said: Part IX having survived, my Amendment relates to the provisions of that Part, which is concerned with miscellaneous foods to be sold by or marked with net weight or gross weight and to be pre-packed only in fixed quantities.

The purpose of the Amendment—and, indeed, of the next Amendment—is to remove the permission for sale by gross weight and to require that all foods mentioned in the Part should be required to be sold by net weight; or, if they are sold by gross weight, that they should be weighed in the presence of the buyer for the purpose of determining the purchase price. It is of importance to mention in this connection that the Hodgson Committee gave considerable time to the consideration of this problem of net weight, gross weight, wrappings and allowances therefore. No fewer than three long paragraphs of the Report are devoted to the consideration of this matter. It is of importance to note that at least four of the foods mentioned in Part IX of the Bill are foods which the Hodgson Committee in paragraph 250 considered should not be sold by gross weight except when weighed in the presence of the purchaser as part of a retail transaction, or where pre-packed on the retail premises in which they are to be sold or offered for sale.

The Committee admit in their Report that they faced some difficulties in dealing with this matter, but they nevertheless came down definitely in favour of sale by net weight. I quoted these words yesterday and they are worth quoting again. In paragraph 251 the Committee said: We feel strongly that any violation of the principle of sale by net weight is, in theory at least, thoroughly undesirable".

Later in the same paragraph they say: We cannot countenance the hazarding over so wide a front of the principle of sale by net weight.

Then, at the end of paragraph 252 they say: Hence, we recommend that, in the case of these articles a wrapper allowance should be given only when they are weighed out in the presence of the purchaser as part of a retail transaction or where pre-packed on the retail premises in which they are to be sold or offered for sale.

In those circumstances, I think the case is almost unanswerable for removing this and saying that the foods specified in Part IX should be sold only by net weight except in the presence of the buyer. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 68, line 34, leave out ("sold") and insert ("weighed for the determination of the purchase price in the presence of the buyer").—(Lord Latham.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

What Part IX of the Fifth Schedule requires is that butter, margarine and cooking fats must be sold by net weight, or, if they are pre-packed, must be marked with net weight, except that they may be sold by, or marked with, gross weight provided that the weight of the container does not exceed the limits prescribed in Table A of Part XIII of this Schedule. The effect of the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has moved, would be to confine this alternative of selling by gross weight solely to the shopkeeper who was weighing these foods for sale in the presence of the buyer, and to require the pre-packer to mark them with their net weight only, whether they are pre-packed in the factory or made up by the retailer on his own premises in advance of a sale.

The noble Lord quoted paragraph 251 of the Hodgson Committee Report, of which we are of course aware, and we recognise the force of this particular recommendation. What we feel is that the permitted weights in Tables A and B of Part XIII of the Schedule are so small that even in cases of small weights they do not amount to an appreciable diminution of net weight and that the convenience which the customer derives from their employment is well worth any marginal difference in the weight. I do not think the difference in the weight would often be perceptible on an indicator on the weighing machine; it probably would not be more than the thickness of the dividing line.

LORD LATHAM

With respect, may I say that the Committee did not accept that view.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

But the Committee did say in their previous paragraph, 250, in speaking of wrappers: The placing of such obstacles in the way of quick and accurate service would…cause grocers to discontinue using wrappers wherever possible, which, from the point of view of hygiene, would be to the detriment of the consumer. While they point out that the factory packer really had no need of these allowances, they do not go so far as to say that the retail pre-packer should be deprived of them, which is what the noble Lord's Amendment would do. While we do not dispute, at least in the generality of cases, the validity of what the Hodgson Committee said about pre-packing at the factory, the Government do believe the most sensible and businesslike course is to apply the same provisions, including container allowances, right across the board for all transactions in these goods, so that all sectors of the trade know they stand on the same footing as each other, and in so far as these marginal weights of greaseproof paper are of importance to anyone, the consumer has a self-evident standard of comparison between the pre-packed and the unpacked commodity.

The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, speaking an hour or two ago on an Amendment on which your Lordships divided, pointed out that we wore doing our best to protect the consumer, but we must also consider the benefit to the consumer which would be derived from better service, from having a system which would enable fewer assistants to be employed in the shop, and so on; and I think we must consider the extent to which retail trade has developed in these respects in the last nine years since the Report of the Hodgson Committee was published

LORD LATHAM

In the light of what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Fifth Schedule (continued):

PART X

Miscellaneous foods to be sold by or marked with net weight or gross weight

LORD LATHAM

This Amendment is put down because I understand that some doubt has been cast as to whether dates as sold in this country are dried or fresh dates. Some packers are at present arguing that such dates are, in fact, fresh. It is felt that in order to avoid any doubt in the future the item "dates" should be removed from paragraph 1 (a) and included in a new subparagraph (h). That involves Amendments Numbers 143A and 143B. I beg to move the first.

Amendment moved—

Page 69, line 14, leave out ("dates")—(Lord Latham.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I am grateful to the noble Lord for detecting an omission in the Bill. Part X is confined to dried dates because it was thought that Tunis dates, which are normally imported into this country in a pre-packed state, were subject to a minor form of processing before they were packed. We were leaving these dates to be caught under the general net-weight marking requirement in Part XII of this Schedule. We have recently discovered that these dates would, in fact, obtain exemption under paragraph 3 and that there would be no requirement anywhere in the Bill that they must be marked with their weight. If the noble Lord would like to withdraw his Amendment, I will put down a Government Amendment giving effect to what he proposes.

LORD LATHAM

In those circumstances, I most willingly withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LATHAM

There was another Amendment which, from a procedural point of view, had been left out, but it was to be reinstated. It deals with the heading.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I understand that there was an Amendment on the Marshalled List yesterday, but it does not appear to-day. That is because, strictly speaking, it is only an Amendment to a heading and not to the words of the Bill.

5.31 p.m.

LORD FARINGDONmoved, in paragraph 2 (b) to leave out all words after "pre-packed only" and insert:

1. "(i) in one of the following quantities, that is to say, two, four, eight or twelve ounces, one pound, one and a half pounds, or a multiple of one pound; and
2. (ii) in a container marked with an indication of quantity,

being in each case quantity by net weight or, if the container does not exceed the appropriate permitted weight aforesaid, quantity either by net weight or by gross weight:"

The noble Lord said: The point of this Amendment, which I rather hope the Government may accept, is merely to continue the law as it is at the present time. It is not an innovation in any sense. Under the present legislation the foods listed in Part X of the Fifth Schedule, comprising dried fruits, cereals and similar articles, and flour and flour products, are required to be pre-packed in fixed prescribed quantities. That is the object of this Amendment. Under the Bill it would seem that this practice is no longer to be continued in respect of these particular foods. It has always been considered a great protection of the housewife that she should be able to buy pre-packed goods in prescribed quantities. It is a simple case of seeing exactly what she is getting, and to save her from being cheated. It would seem to those of us who have put down this Amendment that it takes up a matter which is at present practised and puts it into the pill, its absence therefrom being, I suggest, a retrograde step. Therefore, I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Pace 69, line 39, leave out from ("only") to end of line 43 and insert the said sub-paragraphs.—(Lord Faringdon.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

This Amendment would have the effect of requiring that all the foods listed in Part X of this Schedule should be pre-packed in specified quantities only. It is exactly the same as the Amendment proposed some little time ago by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, supported by Lord Shackle-ton and Lord Latham, which we discussed at great length. The only slight difference is that here it would allow the weight of a light container to be taken into account in the packed weight of goods, as Part X would do as at present drafted. But the arguments against requiring these foods to be pre-packed in specified quantities are exactly the same as those which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on his previous Amendment.

LORD FARINGDON

The noble Earl has not dealt with my really basic point, which is that this Amendment seeks to re-establish the law as it is at present. As I remember it, his argument was that one did not want to pre-pack these things at certain fixed weights because it would increase the cost of production and so the articles would become more expensive. But, as in fact this has been common practice in the past, I do not think that argument can possibly apply in the present case.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I pointed out on the earlier Amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin was dealing with some foods which, under the present law, have to be sold in specified weights, and I gave the seasons. They were the growing universality of the pre-packaging industry, and the feeling that it would be more to the convenience of the public if the goods in question no longer had to be in specified weights, owing to the fact that the containers are so largely standardised nowadays.

LORD LATHAM

In his comprehensive consideration of this question on an earlier Amendment did the noble Earl have in mind the First Schedule to the Weights and Measures Act, 1926, which requires the majority of the foods now exempt to be, pre-packed in prescribed quantities? That was enacted in 1926 and, so far as one knows, the provision has worked satisfactorily. What are the reasons for departing from a provision which was made in 1926, no doubt for good reason?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

What I submitted to your Lordships in the earlier Amendment was this. I said that, admittedly, some of the dried products and grain products in this Part had been required to be packed in specified weights since 1926, and some of the dried fruits since 1949. However, these foods are coming more and more to be packed in cardboard cartons rather than in the old paper bags, and the economic standardisation of the size of these cartons which can be used for a variety of these goods with different densities, Will be prevented if the requirement to be packed in specified weights is not relaxed. That is exactly the same consideration which I would submit in reply to this Amendment.

LORD ATHAM

I do not think that it does that. It has only this effect upon myself: that it increases the price we are paying to the manufacturers of containers to avoid standardisation.

LORD FARINGDON

I must say that I am far from satisfied with the noble Earl's reply in this matter. It seems to me, as I think my noble friend Lord Latham said a little earlier, that we are becoming the slaves of the package makers. Instead of fitting the packet to the amount of food, we are fixing the amount of food by how much will go into the packet. This seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse. However, if the noble Earl really is adamant on this, I suppose I shall have to ask permission to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendmet, by leave, withdrawn.

Fifth Schedule (continued):

PART XI

Miscellaneous foods to be marked when pre-packed with quantity by number

LORD SHEPHERD

I have already spoken to this Amendment when I was moving a previous Amendment, but I should like to say one or two further words. I was wondering whether the noble Earl would consider a further Amendment at a later stage, to paragraph 1 (a) of Part XI, whereby we could delete the word "breakfast" so that we should have, under this Part that the miscellaneous foods to be marked would include: (a) cereal biscuit foods;". If this was possible I believe we could then have under this cover certain items which are neither bread, biscuit nor, possibly, cereals. I am thinking particularly of some of these slimming type rolls that have been put on the market, which are dubious as to what they can do for the figure, dubious in weight and, I believe, on occasion, dubious as to the numbers received in the packet. This is an increasing business and I should like to see this type of roll (some may call it biscuit) brought within this Bill, so that the package will have to state clearly the number of rolls it contains. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 70, leave out line 6.—(Lord Shepherd.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I should like a little time to consider the noble Lord's suggestion, which I know is put forward in a desire to improve the Bill as well as a desire to reduce our expanding circumferences.

LORD SHEPHERD

In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.43 p.m.

LORD STONHAMmoved, in paragraph (1), to add to sub-paragraph (c): except where fewer than seven shell eggs are ore-packed in a container in such a manner that their nature and number can be clearly seen by a prospective purchaser ".

The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will be aware that Part XI of the Fifth Schedule deals with miscellaneous foods which, when pre-packed, must be marked with the quantity the package contains by number; and it includes Shell eggs. Earlier this afternoon we were discussing a part of the Bill which permits pre-packed goods, provided that the total number is not more than six, to be exempted from the provisions requiring the package to be marked with the quantity by number, if the package is such that the contents can be clearly seen by the purchaser. This Amendment proposes to give the same advantages to packages of pre-packed eggs not exceeding six in number which the Bill at present gives to pre-packed vegetables and foods.

I cannot see how there can be any valid arguments against making this proposed change, because there ought not to be any differentiation between eggs and horticultural products. The noble Earl, when he comes to reply, might argue that at present pre-packed eggs are often in a container which ensures that their contents are not visible at all. I quite agree with that, and if the contents were not visible they would not satisfy the provisions of the Bill as I hope to see it amended. But there is developing in the pre-packaging industry, from those who sell eggs and desire to promote the increased sale of eggs, a package which does permit of the contents being clearly visible, and I am quite sure Her Majesty's Government would have no wish to stop that development. In the interests of the producers, and indeed of the consumers in buying a handy package, the contents of which can be clearly seen, I hope the Government will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 70, line 9, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Stonham.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

We have now got to Part XI of the Bill which requires miscellaneous foods to be marked, when pre-packed, with the quantity by number. The Amendment seeks to exempt from this requirement a pre-pack containing fewer than seven eggs, if the nature and number of the eggs are clearly visible to the buyer. I see no objection to this in principle and I shall be glad to accept it. I am told that there may be one slight complication—namely, that containers holding fewer than seven eggs, while being exempt from the requirements of Part XI of the Schedule, may nevertheless fall within the requirements of Part XII, whereby they would have to be marked with the net weight or measure of their contents. I would propose, therefore, if the noble Lord would withdraw his Amendment to draft another which will guard against that.

LORD STONHAM

I am most gratified by that reply. It makes three acceptances of principle in a row, and I can only hope that our good fortune will continue. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Fifth Schedule (continued):

PART XII

Other pre-packed foods

2. Subject to paragraph 3 of this Part of this Schedule, goods to which this Part of this Schedule applies, shall he pre-packed only if the container is marked with an indication of quantity either by net weight or by capacity measurement.

3. The following shall be exempted from the requirements of this Part of this Schedule, that is to say—

1. (1) biscuits in a quantity of less than four ounces;

(5) fruits or vegetables of any description (including mushrooms) and coconuts, being fruits, vegetables or coconuts—

1. (a) in the state in which they were harvested; or
2. (b) in the said state apart from cleaning or trimming;

(10) soft drinks of any description in a syphon or in a quantity of less than five fluid ounces;

VISCOUNT MACKINTOSH of HALIFAXmoved, in paragraph 2, to leave out "paragraph 3" and insert "paragraphs 3 and 4". The noble Lord said: This Amendment which stands in my name is consequential on Amendment No. 150, which is also in my name. Would it please the noble Earl if I spoke to both of them now? In proposing my Amendment I speak for the Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance, an organisation which represents all sides of the industry—manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers. It is, of course, an industry in which I am personally interested. The confectionery industry gives general approval to the Bill. The industry, which includes many firms of high repute, has always been foremost in giving the public a fair deal. The industry does not oppose the requirement of the Bill that pre-packed goods should be marked with the weight. The question is: with what weight should the goods be marked?—and even here we are concerned only with assortments of chocolates and sweets where each sweet is individually wrapped. We consider that the manufacturers should have the option of declaring either the net weight or the weight including the individual wrappings.

It may appear to your Lordships a small matter, but there must be at least 1,000 tons of such goods sold each week, which of course means millions of purchasers. Moreover, two-thirds of those goods are sold loose by weight; that is to say, are weighed out in amounts of¼ lb., ½lb. or 1 lb., as the case may be, from a bulk supply by the shopkeeper at the time of, purchase. The other 400 tons a week are sold in pre-packed units. At one time these assortments were almost entirely sold in bulk form, but over the last 25 years the sale of pre-packed units has grown considerably. Originally the sweets were wrapped to prevent them from sticking together, and to help keeping qualities, as well as to identify the various varieties. It was done, therefore, for the convenience and safety, hygienically speaking, of the public.

Gradually, however, the individual wrappings have been produced in gay and attractive colours. The public like it that way, and it adds to their enjoyment. In my young days it was only necessary to please the palate. Nowadays one has to please the eye, too, or one's products will never get as far as the palate. I must try your Lordships' patience a moment longer to make it plain that these wrappings represent only a fraction of the combined weight of the goods and immediate wrappings. For instance, in a typical assortment the wrapping would be about a one-thirty-second part; and in every case these wrappings are much more expensive—by weight—than the sweets themselves. No manufacturer, therefore, could use the wrappings to cheapen the cost of the line—quite the opposite.

With that background, may I turn to the Amendment itself. Of the 1,000 tons of goods sold a week, two-thirds are sold in bulk and weighed out by the shopkeeper at the time of purchase. This is all sold net weight, inclusive of the immediate wrappings. The Board of Trade agree that this is the only practical thing to do. The only alternative would be for the shopkeeper to unwrap every piece at the time of purchase, weigh the sweets without the wrappers, and then put all the wrappers on again, while the customer waited—obviously an impossibility. The other one-third, say 400 tons a week, is sold in pre-packed units—that is,¼ a lb., ½ lb. or 1 lb.—and again the weight includes immediate wrappings. The public have been used to this form of buying these assortments for generations and are quite satisfied with it. Sales of these goods when sold in bulk (two-thirds of them) are not subject to the provisions of this Bill and the immediate wrappings will continue to be included in the weight which the customer purchases. If, however, the same confectionery is purchased in a pre-packed form it will not, under the terms of this Bill, be possible to include the immediate wrappings in the stated weight. A ½ lb. of sweets purchased in the weigh-out form will not be the same quantity as a ½ lb. of sweets, the same sweets, purchased in the pre-packed form—to the confusion of the customer.

It is considered desirable to have the same basis of measurement of quantity for the same goods, irrespective of the pack in which they are sold. It seems unreasonable that a Bill whose object is to help the consumer in buying and to prevent him from being deceived should lead directly to confusion and misunderstanding. One has the feeling that it is done more for the sake of administrative tidiness than for any benefit to the public. If the manufacturers are given the option of marking this particular type of goods or product either with the net weight or with the weight including the immediate wrappings and stating the fact on the package, no one would be deceived or aggrieved. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 70, line 31, leave out ("paragraph 3") and insert ("paragraphs 3 and 4").—(Viscount Mackintosh of Halifax.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

In view of the fact that there will soon be a Royal Commission perhaps it would be convenient that the House should now resume and adjourn during pleasure.

House resumed and adjourned during pleasure.

House resumed.