HL Deb 06 July 1976 vol 372 cc1142-65

2.44 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 2 [Units of measurement lawful for use for trade]:

Lord MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 5, line 6, after second (" to ") insert (" inform ")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1 standing in my name. The purpose of this Amendment is to seek at least assurances from the Government on the all-important question of educating or informing the consumer. The noble Baroness, Lady White, said on Second Reading that it was " one of the most difficult things ". She very rightly added that an even greater effort was needed, stressing, for instance, the long-term role which the BBC could usefully play. Therefore, in this context I should like to refer to last Friday's housewives' programme broadcast by the BBC on the subject of metrication, which was entitled " Money Go-Round ". It usefully summarised the popular arguments against developing metrication, of which there were three. The first of them was fear that it would produce more inflation; the second one was that it should be postponed so far as consumer goods are concerned until inflation is down to single figures—I understand that suggestion originated from the National Consumer Council. The third argument concerned the fear of not understanding the new system.

I think there are a number of positive consumer arguments and I shall deal with them later, but I should now like to comment on the negative arguments which I have just mentioned. Taking the first one, metrication, that, in principle, has nothing to do with inflation and is entirely neutral on the prices per unit of food purchased. However, the Minister already has power to control the price situation under existing legislation by means of, for example, the Price Commission, the unit pricing Act, prescribed orders, and so on. He has in effect already taken advantage of those in cases of bread, butter and so on. With regard to cornflakes, there is an interesting example of a decrease in price, and here I should like to quote Mr. J. SandysWinsch of Kellogg, who said last month: With cornflakes we made very considerable cost savings by putting 10 per cent. more product in the same sized box, and this enabled us to price metric cornflakes at plus 5 per cent. for 10 per cent. more food.

To return to last week's BBC programme, a representative of the firm of Tesco said during the programme that of 12 products so far metricated, with 10 per cent. extra weight, the highest price increase had been 7 per cent. I should also like to quote Mrs. Daisy Hyams of Tesco, who said last month: As far as many British food manufacturers are concerned, they have progressed so far with metric packaging that it would be impossible for them to resurrect the past, and the Government delay in passing orders is causing irritation and confusion.

The second negative argument which was put forward in the BBC programme could have the effect of postponing metrication once again—I imagine until about 1978 at the earliest. This is highly undesirable, as I said on Second Reading, and although the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, is not here perhaps I might refer to that occasion. Then I was mainly concerned with equipment and machinery. Again, in answer to the query of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, on 15th June in the Second Reading debate, as to whether countries were refusing non-metric goods, I can find no evidence of this having been applied to food, but I can produce evidence with regard to trade instruments, machinery and so on. However, I think that such an argument for delay, as was mentioned in the BBC broadcast, would also leave manufacturers and retailers with no plan and no programme, and with complete uncertainty as to the dates to which they should be working In such circumstances no one would act. It would truly be a prescription to increase cost and price. The third argument of the programme is certainly valid and genuine; that is, the fear of not understanding the metric system. That brings me to the question of the responsibility of informing the consumer; hence the Amendment which I have put down today.

I should now like to refer to some of the more positive consumer arguments. For example, without one measurement system there would be a myriad of new "frontiers" at which the consumer would have to pause and recalculate, both in his working life and in his domestic activities. International advice, based on experience, is that unit pricing should be by the kilo, because that is of course a bigger weight than a pound and permits finer pricing; for example, .½.p and not necessarily 1p. Also, both industry and retailers have pressed strongly the case for definite transitional periods and clear cut-off dates, about which 1 spoke on Second Reading. This would benefit the consumer, because it implies co-ordination, targets and a basis for a good educative programme. Let us also not forget, as was said by several noble Lords on Second Reading, that our younger citizens are involved and 15 million of them have already passsd through an education system which is primarily teaching the metric system.

Therefore, in conclusion, I believe that there is a strong case for the Secretary of State to assume the responsibility of informing the consumer of the personal benefits of metrication, since, so far as I can ascertain, all the popular publicity so far has been on the case against. Furthermore, overseas experience indicates that consumer confusion is reduced and the educative process enhanced if the consumer buys under one system and not two. To quote from the Australian McB Newsletter of January/February this year, that stated: People seeking the provision of dual statements usually do not realise that by asking for this ' crutch ' they are encouraging the creation of future generations of cripples ' who, in their turn, would need the support of equivalents and thereby prolong indefinitely the period of dualism with all its confusion and inefficiencies ".

Finally, I believe that Government information should be in the terms and thinking of the metric system, also making clear to the consumer the protection that is already available. As experience has shown in Australia and all other converting countries, the best, and in many cases the only, way of gaining an understanding of metric measures is by personal involvement in situations calling for the use by the individual of metric terms. My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord SHINWELL

My Lords, I do not regard the Amendment with any favour at all and I hope that it will be rejected. As I understand it, the proposition is that the Secretary of State should accept responsibility for informing existing consumers and potential consumers about all the difficulties associated with metrication. This morning I happened to be reading the Hansard report of another place—I do it almost every morning after breakfast; before breakfast it would make that meal almost indigestible—and what I discovered was this. Quite a number of questions were asked by the denizens of another place about metrication, but with very little success. Questions were asked of, I think, the Under-Secretary of State or the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr. Fraser—I am not certain of the post which Mr. Fraser occupies—about the effect which metrication will have on the price of various commodities. In one of the replies, it was stated by the Minister that it has been discovered that cornflakes will probably be reduced in price. There was no mention of the kind of cornflakes. As we know, there are a great variety of cornflakes. But, anyway, that was the answer —very brief, very ambiguous, very nebulous, and similar to the answers I received from my noble friend the Minister, who is responsible in your Lordships' House, when we were deployed in the Committee stage. It was said that metrication was inevitable, that it had to come and so on. A similar argument was adduced yesterday, if it can be called an argument. It is merely an assertion, and not an argument of any validity at all.

Then questions were asked about the cost—I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, did not refer to that—of informing consumers. I believe that the figure of £136 million was mentioned, although the Minister said that he would not like to be tied down to a figure. Of course, as we know from our experience, when estimates are furnished about the cost of anything at all they are usually started on a very low profile, and then they gradually escalate until the Government find themselves financially embarrassed. Consumers and retailers ought to have been informed all along about this piece of legislation and its effect, and not after metrication comes into existence.

Therefore, this Amendment has no value at all. I do not want to impose further responsibilities upon the Secretary of State, because he has quite enough to do. Therefore, I hope that the Amendment will be rejected.

2.59 p.m.

Lord ORAM

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, for the way in which he has introduced his Amendment, because he called attention to a number of important considerations concerning public information while the process of metrication is going on. The Metrication Board has already done a very good job in relation to metrication at the level of industry, but we are now proceeding to fields where the consumer is more directly involved. The noble Lord was perfectly right to make the point he did concerning such things as TV programmes and so on. Indeed, during the Committee stage of the Bill I pointed out that the differences between the Bill which is now before your Lordships' House and the one that was introduced in another place were specifically to enable the kind of consumer information to be provided which the noble Lord has indicated is so necessary. Nevertheless, I hope to persuade the noble Lord that his Amendment is not necessary for this process and I shall invite your Lordships not to pass it, though for reasons very different from those put forward by my noble friend Lord Shinwell.

The Amendment is really unnecessary. The new subsection (2A), upon which the noble Lord's Amendment depends, in itself draws the attention of the Secretary of State to the need to bear in mind consumer interests in particular, and she is required to consult organisations that are representative of consumers. The word " consult " does all that the noble Lord has in mind with regard to information. In that connection, it may be helpful if I outline briefly the normal consultation procedure under the existing powers for making orders.

When proposals are still at the formative stage, informal consultations are normally held with organisations which appear to the Department to be representative of the necessary interests. These consultations may be in the form of correspondence or meetings. When as a result of those formal consultations the proposals have become firmer, there is formal consultation in compliance with the requirements of the original Act of 1963. Generally this consultation is by letter and includes the proposed draft legislation so that the organisations which are concerned are informed and can express a formal view about the Government's proposals. It will be the Government's intention to follow the procedure that I have outlined.

Lord DERWENT

My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, he said that consultation would take place with those organisations which it appeared to the Department ought to be consulted. Can other organisations also put forward their views ?

Lord ORAM

My Lords, perhaps inadvertently I used the word " Department ". In law the responsibility is that of the Secretary of State and it is she—or, in other circumstances, he— who would draw up a list of organisations. Clearly, though, organisations which do not happen in the first instance to be consulted, but which have a point of view, are fully entitled to put forward representations. May I stress that there is nothing strict about this procedure. Consumer groups of all kinds are welcome to send in their representations— and, indeed, they do. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, will understand from what I have said that although I am fully with him in the spirit of his Amendment—that the fullest amount of information is necessary in order that consultations should be held at the best level—the insertion of the word " inform is unnecessary for that purpose.

Lord MERRIVALE

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his very full answer. In my opening remarks I said that I was seeking mainly an assurance from the Government. If I understood aright the Minister's words, I think that Her Majesty's Government and the Secretary of State are well seized of the necessity to inform the consumer and that, as the Minister has said, the Amendment is not necessary. Therefore I do not propose to press it, and I trust that that will please the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. However, as the noble Lord mentioned remarks made by Mr. J. D. Fraser, the Minister responsible, at the IGD seminar on metrication, may I quote Mr. Fraser's remarks of 16th June, when he said: All the advice I am now receiving from a wide variety of sources is unanimous in the view that metrication has gone as far as it can on a voluntary basis in the retail sector, particularly for foodstuffs. It is clear that regulation is necessary if we are to proceed with metrication with the least confusion to industry and consumers alike ". I am now satisfied that the noble Lord. Lord Oram, Mr. Fraser and the Government themselves will press ahead along the lines which have been mentioned this afternoon. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.6 p.m.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 5, line 8, at end insert— ( ) In Schedule 6 to the 1963 Act after the words " and (b)" in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph (3) there are inserted the words—

subject to paragraph (3A) of this paragraph ",

and after sub-paragraph 3 of paragraph 3 of the said Schedule there shall be inserted the following new sub-paragraph— 3A.—(1) This sub-paragraph applies to any vehicle on or from which any solid fuel is sold or kept or exposed for sale or available for delivery in containers.

(2) On every vehicle to which this subparagraph applies there shall, in respect of solid fuel of every description which is available as described in sub-paragraph (1) above, be displayed a notice specifying the quantity in which solid fuel of that description is kept or exposed for sale or available for delivery in containers after sale.

(3) Every such notice shall be constructed of wood or other durable material, shall be clearly and permanently inscribed in characters of a height of not less than 6 centimetres and composed of strokes of a breadth of not less than one centimetre and shall be securely and conspicuously affixed to the vehicle in such a position as to be easily read from either side of the vehicle.

(4) If in the case of any vehicle there is a contravention of any of the requirements of this paragraph, the person by or on behalf of whom the solid fuel is made available for purchase as described in sub-paragraph (1) above, and any other person who is in charge of the vehicle at the time of the contravention, shall each be guilty of an offence."."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this comparatively large Amendment deals with a comparatively small area. Your Lordships will recall that at Committee stage we discussed the situation in which a merchant selling or delivering coal in sacks on a flat bed vehicle was required to supply each sack with a tally stating the quantity by weight of the solid fuel within that sack. This is a tally which is rarely, if ever, consulted by the consumer and it constitutes something of a nuisance to the merchant. At Committee stage the Government agreed that they were sympathetic to the idea that there should be substituted for this requirement, which springs from a Statutory Instrument and not from an Act, a requirement that a notice should be clearly displayed upon the vehicle stating the weights of the solid fuel which was in sacks on the vehicle and that it would then no longer be necessary to have tallies on the individual bags. However, the noble Lord said that there were difficulties about describing the type of notice and that it might not be possible to bring in an Amendment before the Bill left this House.

In order both to give the noble Lord an opportunity to confirm his commitment to this cause and also perhaps to help forward the search for a suitable formula, I have tabled this Amendment, which is drawn in part from earlier legislation in Northern Ireland which has been found to work satisfactorily. The Amendment describes in some detail the nature of the notice, the materials that it should be made of, the size of the writing and so on, and I hope that it may be found to be satisfactory—although I do not lay any claim to ultimate wisdom in the matter. The noble Lord may well wish to take away the Amendment and improve it, or substitute his own Amendment. However, I want to keep this matter on the move and at the same time to mention that I hope the noble Lord will confirm that it is the Government's intention not merely to bring in the requirement for a notice—-which it does not appear to be possible to do in a shorter flow of words—but also to abolish the requirement for the tally which cannot be done properly within the Bill, since the tally springs from a Statutory Instrument which it would be more appropriate to withdraw by another means. I beg to move.

Lord ORAM

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has indicated, we have briefly gone over this ground on earlier occasions. I welcome the fact that the noble Lord has put down this Amendment for further clarification although, as he has also indicated, we are not yet at the point of finality in this matter. However, there is no difficulty between the noble Lord and myself. The Government fully accept the intention behind the noble Lord's Amendment but, as he himself has suggested, we cannot accept it in its present form.

The noble Lord called attention to two suggestions: one is that the tally should no longer be required on the sacks of coal, as at present; secondly, as he has indicated in the Amendment, that there ought to be a sign on the vehicle with the necessary size of lettering and so on. On those points I assure him that there is no difference between us. We intend to implement those two proposals: the first under a Statutory Instrument and the second by an Amendment to the present Bill.

However, we have not been able to transfer, as the noble Lord has suggested, the Northern Ireland form of wording to this Bill because discussions have gone further with the organisations concerned and they have produced a number of detailed points which I will not bother the House with at this stage; but they are points which need to be introduced into the Bill and to be covered by the powers of the Bill. It will be necessary to do that at a later stage. Since there are difficult drafting points, it may not be necessary for us to do it at the Third Reading in this House, but I give a categorical assurance that it is our intention to introduce an Amendment in another place seeking enabling powers to introduce the arrangements that the noble Lord has indicated. This would be done by order and such an order would of course also be made subject to formal consultations and Affirmative Resolution procedures. In the light of those assurances which I give fully, I hope the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.

Lord SHINWELL

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has raised a very important point. He said it was a minor point, but I regard it as one of substance. Let me explain. He referred to the sale of coal in sacks. I am not quite sure about the situation in London. No doubt people buy coal in various ways from the coal merchant and probably the custom in London is different from that followed in many parts of the Provinces, but ordinarily the coal is sold in hundredweight sacks and it is necessary to discover what is the metric equivalent of the hundredweight.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, I think it might be of use if I were to point out that the substance of the Amendment remains the same whether we use hundredweights or kilos or some Martian equivalent. It is simply a question of how the householder can best be apprised of what he is buying. At present it is on something that he cannot see and rarely refers to; I think that it ought to be on something that he can see and will refer to.

Lord SHINWELL

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, but even with my limited intelligence I understood that. As I understand it, the consumer wants to know. The person who is about to buy the coal has been in the habit of buying a hundredweight of coal and knowing that there was a certain quantity in the sack; he now wants to be assured that under metrication, at any rate for the same price, the consumer will get the same quantity of coal. That is the position. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, does not dissent from what I have just said, so clearly I understood the meaning of the Amendment.

I think the Minister will be fully informed on this subject. If I may say so, I am a friend of the Minister, having known him for many years in another place and I know he is a person of considerable intelligence. But he has really taken advantage of some of us by not answering the questions in the meticulous fashion that one would expect from a Minister. I say, " one would expect from a Minister " advisedly. Apparently he does not know the equivalent quantity that would be supplied to the consumer. He says that they are going to furnish an Amendment in another place in order to correct this matter. Is that the kind of answer that the consumer will be content with? Of course it is not. I am sorry to use the expression, but I am going to use it all the same because it is in my head and so I am going to get it out: I believe many consumers under metrication are going to be swindled by retailers. I do not say for a single moment that every retailer is unscrupulous, but many will be inclined to set aside their scruples when the opportunity presents itself—and that is putting it very mildly.

We ought to have a much better answer from the Minister than saying that there will be an Amendment, or probably that it will be included in the regulations or provided by a Statutory Instrument. These are all the technical procedural devices which are deployed by members of the Government when they cannot provide the ordinary answer that would content the person concerned.

It is not good enough. All that I hear about metrication and all the assurances that it is inevitable, that it has to come, that it has come and we cannot send it back, that we cannot turn the clock back and all the jargon that is associated with this matter, is simply not good enough. We must know a great deal more about it. The fact of the matter is that the consumers have never been consulted as they ought to have been. The Consumer Council does not take into account the wish of the ordinary consumer. If that statement is challenged, then I hope we shall get the evidence, but it cannot be challenged. Therefore, from all that I have read and I all that I have heard and from Questions in another place and so on, I am convinced that this will be a means of extracting from the consumer payment for something which formerly was paid for by the same amount of cash or by equivalent credit but which doesinot provide the same amount of material.

I noticed, in the Questions in another place yesterday, the Minister said that they had achieved a great deal because sugar was now in the shops with metric markings and so far nobody had been swindled. In fact, he suggested that some people got the sugar at a lower price. That is just a dodge. It simply will not do. I suggest to the Minister quite seriously that he must be more meticulous, more definite, more decisive in furnishing replies; otherwise we shall remain dissatisfied.

Baroness WHITE

My Lords, has my noble friend seen the letters which appeared in the Financial Times a day or two ago in which it was said that, so far as metrication is concerned, it is the younger generation in this country that we ought to be considering—that is, those who have been taught the metric system in school, who leave school and go into jobs and then find that they have to learn imperial in order to go back to the generation of my noble friend? Is not the real danger of the metrication change not bureaucracy but gerontocracy?

Lord SHINWELL

My Lords, allow me to say this in reply to my noble friend: I am not a professional metricationist.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, with the greatest respect for the noble Lord who has just sat down—and I think I have no greater respect for any Member of this House—the purpose of this Amendment is not to achieve the results of dual marking, which at present are elsewhere in the Bill, to ensure that the purchaser is able to relate what he is buying under one system with what he bought under another. I sympathise with that need. I believe that it is dealt with elsewhere in the Bill and this would not be the proper place for an Amendment. The Amendment simply says that there should be a statement—and it can be a dual statement or a single statement—of the weight in the bags, centrally visible on the lorry.

The noble Lord, Lord Oram, made generous and helpful commitments about his future intentions for an Amendment at a later stage. The remaining later stage in this House is clue to be taken in about 48 hours, and I would just mention to the noble Lord the conditions of work already alluded to in another place. I wonder whether he is sufficiently confident of the smooth passage there of this Bill administratively for it to have the time and attention it requires. If the noble Lord was able —and it is difficult—to get the Amendment in this House, I would feel happier that it would be in the Bill when it left both Houses. I do not wish to be unduly pessimistic; I just want to leave the thought with him. I think we all want the same thing in this respect, and I think it would be as well to get it down ourselves if we can.

Having said that, I will not delay the House by insisting on the Amendment, since the noble Lord tells us that there are points not covered which have been requested by those concerned, and it would be discourteous and impetuous to insist on it in the knowledge that it was not perfect. If the noble Lord can see his way to bringing forward his own Amendment, we should be grateful. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my own Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 [Containers for goods]:

3.31 p.m.

Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 5, line 29, leave out (" or on ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3. May I say first of all that the Amendments I am moving here all seem to be Amendments of detail but, of course, the details are extremely numerous; we are talking about hundreds of millions of packages. So perhaps I may be allowed to say that it has always been customary to try to ensure that Governments do not take wider powers than they need, than they want, or indeed, than they intend to exercise. It is for that reason that I am querying the use of the words " or on ". I put it no higher than that.

My Lords, as is said in subsection (1) of this clause, we are dealing here with: (orders for the purpose of ensuring that goods are only sold or packed for sale in quantities expressed in a manner specified in the orders or in containers marked with information so specified)…

This proposed new paragraph would require that powers he given for an order to be made that goods …are prepacked, or are otherwise made up for sale or for delivery after sale, only in or on a container of a description so specified;…

Your Lordships may have difficulty in recalling an instance when you had bought things on a container. But it so happened that years ago, when the 1963 Act was being drafted, I was in the Board of Trade and then had to consider each of these matters in detail. If I recall correctly, the reason for the " or on " was because it is customary to display meat for sale in portions or cuts on a piece of greaseproof paper in a shop window, and would no doubt be duly marked with the price. That is treated as a container, as it will be, of course, after the weight has been checked (if it is checked) on the weighing machine and is then wrapped up. So you have the container.

But that is not at all applicable to what we are here considering, if we are to take what the noble Lord, Lord Oram, told us on the previous stage of the Bill. At that time, when I was suggesting that this clause (in fact this whole paragraph) should be left out, the noble Lord made it clear that what the Government are trying to achieve here is to seek powers to add a greater measure of consumer protection by standardising sizes and capacities of the containers involved in the wording which I was seeking, temporarily at any rate, to remove. I cannot see how the standardisation of sizes and capacities of the containers can possibly relate to anything that was on " a container. This is the sole purpose of the Amendment. The noble Lord may be able to reassure me that this is necessary, but I do not see that it can follow either from the words of the EEC Directive, or from the purposes that he was suggesting this paragraph was designed to achieve. I beg to move.

Lord ORAM

My Lords, I do not think that, in the passage quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, I was insisting that these particular words were necessarily for consumer protection. Frankly, they are the same phrasing as is contained in the 1963 Act, and there were good reasons for including the word " on when the 1963 Act was being enacted. Those reasons continue, and they continue, I suggest, into what we are doing in relation to this Bill. It may be helpful if I read out the definition of a container from the 1963 Act. I think the noble Lord will see then that it does not just refer to meat being on a piece of greaseproof paper. The definition is that a container, includes any form of packaging of goods for sale as a single item, whether by way of wholly or partly enclosing the goods or by way of attaching the goods to or winding the goods round, some other article and in particular includes a wrapper or confining band ". That is the existing definition of a container, to cover the various possibilities in shops of a packeted commodity. It is for this reason that the clause makes reference to " on a container ", to cover those cases where goods are not contained exactly in a container. This reference is in line with the existing provision which the noble Lord will find in Section 21(2)(b) and (c) of the 1963 Act where it relates to containers.

Therefore, although the noble Lord has brought forward an interesting point, I think these words are still necessary, as they were in 1963. I would urge him to consider withdrawing the Amendment.

Lord DRUMALBYN

My Lords, with the greatest respect, I think the noble Lord, Lord Oram, should look at this again, because the conditions are quite different from the conditions as applying in Section 21(2) of the Act. Here we are talking about a requirement that the goods are prepacked, or are otherwise made up or in or on a container for sale or for delivery after sale, only if the container is marked with such information as to the quantity of the goods as may be so specified. In this case, we are talking about standardisation of the size or capacity. One cannot attach the size or capacity to something wrapped up in rubber bands, or anything like that. We are talking about the goods themselves, not what is wrapped round them, or anything else in the form, let us say, of a rubber band holding a bunch of daffodils, or whatever it may be, which is added to the pack.

The noble Lord should look at this again because, as I pointed out, even as drafted it does not quite make sense because we are talking about " in containers ". That is what the clause already says. Thereafter it goes on to talk about " in or on " a container. They do not match up. The mere fact that we are talking about " in or on a container " in the substantive Act does not mean that powers should be taken to make this prescription as to capacity or volume or size apply in this case. The words " or on " are simply not applicable. We really do not know how this phrase could be used, and the noble Lord has not explained it, in this connection. The mere fact that these words appeared in the previous context does not justify their appearing in this context. So I would ask the noble Lord please to take this away and have a look at it again.

Lord ORAM

My Lords, I will certainly readily do that, in the light of the more detailed explanation of what the noble Lord has in mind. I will certainly check up the cross references to which he has referred. At present my understanding is that these words will still be necessary; but certainly he has argued so effectively that I willingly give him the assurance that between now and the Third Reading I will look carefully at what he has said to see whether his point can be met.

Lord DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 5, line 30, leave out (" description ") and Insert (" size or capacity ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4. We are on very nearly the same point here. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for having sent me a copy of the letter he wrote to my noble friend in which he touched on the subect of this word " description ", which we arc proposing to leave out. Noble Lords will remember that I suggested at the last stage that " description " went much too far. We are here still talking about size and capacity, and if we say " description " we bring in the question of materials and all the rest of it and vastly extend the power.

The noble Lord has been good enough to reply—I hope he will not mind my quoting from his letter: Basically under one of the EEC Directives it would be necessary for the Government to prescribe different sizes or capacities for containers made of different materials ".

I put my Amendment down before I received this letter, and I would only suggest to the noble Lord that it would be perfectly possible to put those words into the Bill, saying " and the different sizes or capacities may be prescribed for containers made of different materials ". That would pin it down to these three purposes and not go any further, and so limit the very wide range of the word " description ". I beg to move.

Lord ORAM

My Lords, when the noble Lord raised this question at the Committee stage I undertook to look at it carefully, and, as he has indicated, I have written to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on the point. I recognised then, and in fact continued to recognise while that letter was in transit, that all that I was at that point offering was the assurance of the Government that these powers would only be used in the terms the noble Lord has read out. He then goes on to suggest that possibly a new Amendment specifying these words might be suitable. I think I can make him even happier than that Amendment would make him. While I was corresponding with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, this matter was still being looked at, and we have concluded that the form of words the noble Lord himself has put down does not deprive the Government of the powers necessary to do what I said it was essential for us to do; that is, to make different sizes and capacities for different materials. We believe that Section 54(1) of the 1963 Act would enable us to do just what is required, and therefore 1 can recommend to your Lordships that this Amendment be accepted.

Lord DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. May I add just this, that if later he were to find that the words he proposes now to accept do not go quite as far as he needs I would not in the slightest mind if he amplified them in the way I have suggested. May I thank the noble Lord for the consideration he has given to this matter.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 5, line 45, after (" capacity ") insert (" having regard to any reasonable requirement for an interior packing ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5. Its effect would be that the words in the clause would read as follows: Without prejudice to the generality of those powers, an order made by virtue of the said paragraph (bb) may, in order to prevent size or capacity from giving a false impression of the quantity of the goods in a container, prescribe a minimum quantity for the goods in a container of a given capacity "—

and after those words I propose should be added the words: having regard to any reasonable requirement for an interior packing ".

The point of the words I think will immediately be apparent to noble Lords. When he was replying to my proposal at the Committee stage that the whole of this paragraph should be left out, the noble Lord said in regard to consumers: They want regulations which ensure that containers are not misleading or deceptive."—[Official Report, 28/6/76; col. 622.]

I entirely agree. But they also want regulations that will ensure that the product itself arrives in good condition. That may well require an interior packing and 'vill accordingly vary the capacity or size that is prescribed. What this Amendment proposes is that in deciding what should be the size and capacity of the packaging regard should be paid to the need for a reasonable requirement for an interior packing. This can apply, for example, to baby foods. It can apply to greaseproof paper where what is packed inside a carton may require to be insulated in that way. It may also apply to paper to keep crisp products from becoming soggy or flat. There are many other occasions when there has to be an interior packing for the purpose of ensuring that the goods reach the consumer in good condition. That is the purpose of this Amendment. I beg to move.

Lord ORAM

My Lords, we fully appreciate the main argument which the noble Lord puts forward; that is, that there are many goods for which interior packing is essential. The noble Lord is certainly right in urging the Government to have this point in mind. I have stressed on several occasions that this Bill in itself provides but the general powers for action which will in fact be taken under orders. There is full stress on the need for consultation before any orders are made. The factor to which the noble Lord calls attention, the need for interior packing, is, I would suggest to him, one of the factors relating to particular goods which the Secretary of State would have to bear in mind when considering the minimum quantity that should be prescribed in the order.

I must ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment. As we have made clear, and as I have just repeated, any order would be subject to consultation, and in our view discussion of what is or is not reasonable—that word is particularly difficult, as the noble Lord will appreciate —can best take place in the context of consultation with the trade and consumers. We believe that if this requirement were put into the Bill in the form the noble Lord suggests it could lead to considerable difficulty. In any case, I am sure he will bear in mind that any order resulting from the consultation would have to be laid in draft before Parliament and would be subject to Affirmative Resolution procedure, so that there would be full opportunity in relation to any particular goods for the fears or the factors that the noble Lord has in mind to be aired and dealt with.

Lord DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. May I ask him a question? I am sure that the House will give him leave to respond to it. Is it intended that there should be one order, or a small number of orders, giving such requirements as to minimum quantities, or are these orders going to be made from time to time and in considerable individual numbers taken as a whole? The point is, as the noble Lord knows very well, that it is not possible to amend a particular requirement in an order. Indeed, it is unlikely that an order would be withdrawn simply because one particular requirement in a very long list of requirements was wrong. It depends very much on what the intentions of the Government are as to whether I would ask him to consider this matter further.

I would not propose to press this Amendment to a Division, or anything of that sort, because I am satisfied with the intention of the Government that they will in fact take this point into consideration when they are considering what sort of order they should make as to capacity and size. But is it important to make certain that the House itself will have an opportunity of drawing attention to any requirement which the Government might have overlooked or a requirement which the Government had overruled. If it is to be the purpose of the Government to have one long list, then I think I would be inclined to ask the noble Lord to think of this again and see whether suitable words could be designed to put into the clause as a suitable reminder along the lines I have suggested.

Lord ORAM

My Lords, with the leave of the House may I just respond to the noble Lord's query? The whole question of the time-table for bringing in orders under the powers of this Bill will itself be a matter of consideration, and I should not like today categorically to indicate either the length or the nature of that process. He will be aware that under earlier legislation orders have been brought in dealing, generally speaking, with commodities one at a time. I gather from what the noble Lord says that that is the way he would wish to see it so that if there is any particular difficulty on the point that is raised by his Amendment it could be negatived without doing a great deal of harm in other areas. I take his point.

I am sure that the noble Lord will also appreciate that, as experience is gained, there will perhaps be the need for a rather broader order as time goes on, and that is the reason why I am not anxious to make any specific assurance except, as I have said before, that there will be constant consultation. It is our anxiety that both the trade and consumers' interests should be satisfied about the means and time-table of notification.

Lord SHINWELL

My Lords, in view of the vast number of commodities that will be purchased and have to be provided for, and the diversity that will exist, may I ask my noble friend whether it will not be necessary to make an order in each case, in which event another place would be fully occupied dealing with a vast number of orders ? Have the Government made up their mind whether it is possible to have a general order covering a vast number of commodities, or must there be an order for each individual commodity?

Lord ORAM

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I can only say to my noble friend Lord Shinwell that I thought I was answering his question when answering the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. It is true that there are so many commodities that if they were dealt with one at a time, then Parliament, both the other place and this House, would be fully occupied in dealing with them; but I gather that we are used to that.

Lord DRUMALBYN

My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has said and the spirit in which he has said it, I am sure that the House would wish me to withdraw the Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 [Fees for performance of Community obligations]:

3.48 p.m.

Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 7, line 17, leave out (" services or facilities provided by them ") and insert (" testing and stamping weighing and measuring equipment and for obliterating, on the request of the owner, of signs or marks on such equipment the pattern approval of which has ceased to have effect ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage I drew the attention of the Committee to some concern in the trade that the wording of Clause 6 left it open to the Secretary of State to make orders charging for a wider range of activities than the trade had hitherto paid for and which it was felt were already being paid for out of their not inconsiderable contribution to the rates. The noble Lord was kind enough to write to me on this and a number of other matters, and perhaps I was remiss in not having thanked him for that earlier in the debate. As I understood his reply on this point, it was that the wording of my Amendment was unsatisfactory because it did not leave it open to the Department to make charges for obliterating, at the request of the owner, signs or marks on weighing and measuring equipment, the pattern approval of which had ceased to have effect.

It seemed to me that if this was all that stood between us and agreement, it would be sensible for me to lift those words out of his letter and put them into the Amendment, and that should overcome any difficulties in bringing about this small improvement to the Bill. I shall be interested to hear whether, in fact, this is the case. I beg to move.

Lord ORAM

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has said, we briefly considered this question on the Committee stage when he brought forward an Amendment which, on my suggestion, he withdrew. The purpose of that Amendment, as of the Amendment we are now considering, was to restrict the scope of the clause so that no fee can be prescribed for a routine control visit by an inspector of weights and measures. He now suggests that on the basis of my letter some easy Amendment might be possible. I hope that he has had the chance of again looking at the wording in the Bill as it stands, because I think that the words in the Bill cannot be regarded as giving power to prescribe fees for routine control visits, since in going on a routine visit it cannot be conceivable that the inspector is providing a facility or a service for the person visited. I think that, if the noble Lord studies the existing wording, he will find that the fear which he expressed is misplaced. I suggest that there is no danger under the existing wording of a fee being charged in that admittedly undesirable way.

I should perhaps add that the Amendment is open to more criticism than the point that he was making, in that it does not adequately deal with the circumstances in which power to prescribe fees must be available under the Measuring Instruments (EEC Requirements) Regulations 1975. I indicated in Committee that these powers would be needed in connection with the EEC Regulations. The Amendment is not acceptable for that reason as well, so I must advise the House that the Government are not able to accept it.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said and for underlining the fact that there are areas other than the stamping, testing and obliterating of marks for which it is intended that charges shall be made. These arise principally from a Statutory Instrument of last year, and it is important that that should be on the record because there was an element of doubt about that among those affected by the Regulations.

I am in a procedural difficulty, in that I was slightly anticipating that the noble Lord, in his usual courteous and cautious way, would offer to take the matter away to look at it, and I thought that that would then give me the cue for what I wished to say and should have said at the end of our debate on Amendment No. 2 or No. 3; that is, that we have the Third Reading coming up in a remarkably short time. The noble Lord has agreed to look at what I would call the " coal bag Amendment and I have asked him to try to do that before Third Reading. He has also assured my noble friend Lord Drumalbvn that he will look again at what I would call the " in or on Amendment, No. 3, before Third Reading. It is therefore possible that there will be Amendments to table for Third Reading, and I do not think that it is the custom of the House to take Third Reading so close to Report stage when there is a possibility of Amendments. I suggest that the noble Lord might discuss with the usual channels the possibility therefore of taking this doubtless brief but nevertheless important stage a little later; I do not think that that would upset the business of the House, as I do not anticipate it taking more than about half an hour. I should like to put that thought in the noble Lord's mind, and possibly I should give him an opportunity to interrupt now—so that he can be within the conventions of the House in speaking again—if he wishes to make an observation on what I have said before I withdraw the Amendment.

Lord ORAM

My Lords, I was not about literally to jump to my feet, but I shall respond to the noble Lord's invitation. We are in this difficulty, as he said. about the Third Reading having been ordered for two days' time. I will consider what he said, although the noble Lord will understand that it is not a matter for me. I go further, as I would not wish to lose any small reputation I may have wined for courtesy, and say that I am prepared to look at the matter still further, but I should not like that to be taken to mean that I think the Third Reading will be later than two days' time or that I think that I can brine an Amendment forward on this subject in two days' time. However, I undertake to look at this question still further. As I say, I believe that the present wording provides no dangers in the way the noble Lord fears, and if it is not possible to do it for Third Reading, then I will make all necessary representations to the Minister of State, who I think will be in charge of the matter in another place, to ensure that the noble Lord's arguments are fully considered.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I am capable of distinguishing between the noble Lord's courtesy and his ability to accommodate my wishes. I thank him for the one in retrospect and for the other in anticipation. I would not want to make an issue of this but it would be helpful. It is also a good thing to keep the House within its traditions of allowing time for reflection, not necessarily on this Amendment, to which I attach less importance than I do to the two which I mentioned earlier. I suggest that we should not get in the habit of rushing our fences and occasionally knocking them over. I am obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 [Corresponding amendments of lair of Northern Ireland]:

3.55 p.m.

Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 8, line 31, at end insert— (" (10) In this Act any reference to an enactment includes an enactment contained in an Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland or a Measure of the Northern Ireland Assembly.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is little more than a technical Amendment which arises from a change which your Lordships made in Committee. Clause 1(6) of the Bill as now printed provides that nothing in an enactment or in subordinate legislation made under an enactment prevents " gram " being the correct or accepted spelling. To ensure that this provision to legalise the shorter spelling is effective in Northern Ireland, it is necessary to extend the meaning of the term enactment as provided in the Amendment. I am sure that this is a proposal which can be accepted without difficulty.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.