WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT 1963 (HONEY) ORDER 1977

HL Deb 21 March 1977 vol 381 cc259-63

3.53 p.m.

Lord ORAM rose to move, That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Honey) Order 1977, laid before the House on 24th February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Honey) Order 1977, be approved. The order arises from our obligations to implement the terms of the EEC Honey Directive adopted in July 1974 and made under Articles 43 and 100 of the Treaty of Rome. We are, accordingly, required to bring our law into line with the Directive. The main compositional and labelling provisions have already been implemented by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in their 1976 Honey Regulations made in November 1976, which become fully effective on 1st May, 1977. The order now before the House dealing with subsidiary weights and measures provisions contained in the Directive is timed to coincide with this date. Regulations concerned with origin marking provisions also contained in the Directive are also under preparation in my Department.

The EEC Commission is being advised of the proposed order. Comprehensive weights and measures legislation concerning prepacked honey already exists in the 1963 Weights and Measures Act and the necessary powers are available to make the minor changes necessary to bring it into line with the Directive. It was not, therefore, necessary to invoke powers under the European Communities Act 1972. The provisions have been kept to the minimum which are needed to comply. They entail extending weight marking on containers to packs of comb and chunk honey not currently required, ending the unnecessary exemption from this requirement for very small packs and introducing provisions to allow weight marking for non-retail packs of 10 kg. or more to be given in an accompanying document if desired.

The requirement for weight marking to be in metric units, also included in the Directive, is covered by the terms of the dual marking provisions of the 1975 Weights and Measures (Marking of Goods and Abbreviations of Units) Regulations which state that quantities on prepacks should be in both metric and imperial units. The Directive does not cover loose sales of honey over the counter; but we have considered it necessary to preserve the current safeguard by continuing our requirement for honey likely to be sold in this way to be weighted out for the customer.

Noble Lords will, I am sure, agree that these measures are unexceptional and unlikely to have any tangible effect on retail prices. This view was shared by a wide spectrum of opinion among industry, consumers, enforcement authorities and the distributive trade which, as required, under the 1963 Act was sought before the order was laid.

Before commending the order for your Lordships' approval, I should touch on the subject of prescribed quantities. These are covered by the order only in the interests of perpetuating the present position as related to imperial sizes. The derogation written into the Directive makes allowance for this until the end of 1978 by which time it is required that a Community-wide solution for metric prescribed quantities should be adopted. This solution, which will be a general one embracing honey, jams, marmalade, syrup, treacle, et cetera, is now being actively considered among proposals for a Directive on Ranges of Nominal Quantities Permitted for Certain Pre-Packaged Products currently before the EEC Council. A further order will then be necessary to introduce them in this country. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Honey) Order 1977, laid before the House on 24th February, be approved.—(Lord Oram.)

Lord TREFGARNE

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for introducing his Motion this afternoon. I have no serious comment to make on the order before the House, but there are three small observations which I should like to make and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to clarify them. We have heard what he said about the future intentions, as we understand them, of the European Community with regard to the labelling of containers in metric and imperial quantities. He explained how the requirement to label in what is, primarily, at this stage imperial measure will be replaced in due course by the requirement to label primarily in metric measure when the Directive comes into force in 1978. I am therefore a little surprised that the Government have chosen at this stage to perpetuate the prime marking of these labels in imperial measures; because I should have thought that the intention of the Commission was now clear enough for us to be able to lay down the requirements for metric measure and avoid having to change in two years' time. However, the Government have chosen not to do that. So be it.

The second point relates to the marking of the larger, 10 kg., containers which are sold only for wholesale purposes. I wonder whether the Government appreciate that there is an increasing tendency for these large containers, by one means or another, to come on to the retail market. With inflation as it exists, people with large families or even small commercial undertakings, sometimes buy these larger packs from cash and carry establishments, and the like. I wonder whether those people are adequately protected by the requirement only to provide an invoice or something similar with the quantity on it, and not mark the large containers.

With orders such as this, which are increasingly coming before the consuming public, would it be possible or practical in the future to write them in rather more comprehensible language? I have to confess that I am not particularly used to studying these matters in detail, but this order gave me an unpleasant three-quarters of an hour while I waded through the language and tried to marry up the Explanatory Note which to me made it worse, not simpler. Could the noble Lord consider in future writing orders such as this in more understandable language which may help us in Parliament but which, above all, would help the consumers as increasingly they have to rely on these documents for their guidance? Having said that, my Lords, I think that we should approve the Motion and this order into law.

4.1 p.m.

Lord ORAM

My Lords, I will reply briefly to the three points made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. I think, if I may say so, his first point was a little wrong. Under this order, taken together with the 1975 Weights and Measures (Marking of Goods and Abbreviations of Units) Regulations, it will be necessary for packs of honey to be labelled both in metric and imperial units. The point the noble Lord was intending to make was regarding prescribed quantities expressed in metric terms. It is this that is now being settled within the EEC and upon which we cannot yet legislate until that decision is made. That decision covers not only honey but the list of commodities to which I have referred.

Lord TREFGARNE

My Lords, may I be allowed to clarify what I said? I was not clear and I apologise to the noble Lord for that. Under this order, honey must be packed in jars of I oz., 2 oz., 4 oz., 8 oz., 12 oz., 1lb., 1½lb. or a multiple of 1lb. I wonder whether it would have been wiser to provide for the jars to be principally in metric units, for example 250 grammes or 500 grammes, which is what will happen in due course anyway. I should have thought that the intention of the European Economic Community is clear enough now for us to have been able to take that step.

Lord ORAM

My Lords, as I understand it, the intention of the Community is not yet clear on precisely that point. Therefore it is not possible for us to do this. The only question is: should we have not waited until that decision had been reached and dealt with the two matters together? This order is already overdue and it was necessary to do as much as we could at this stage. There will be an additional order to take care of the noble Lord's point.

Regarding the reference to large packs becoming increasingly available through retail establishments, if they are sold by retailers they come under the requirements for marketing. The giving of the information in a separate document only applies—and the order makes this clear—to non-retail sales. The third point was a plea for simplicity which we are constantly hearing, echoing and about which we feel very sympathetic.

The noble Lord complained that he is new to these orders. I am comparatively new, and certainly a year ago when I was tackling this kind of order I felt exactly as he describes himself now. I can only assure the noble Lord that after a year's practice the orders begin to be a little more meaningful. I would not say they are absolutely clear, but I offer him some hope.

On Question, Motion agreed to.