WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT 1963 (COFFEE EXTRACTS AND CHICORY EXTRACTS) ORDER 1978 (Hansard, 26 July 1978)

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY
My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Coffee Extracts and Chicory Extracts) Order 1978, laid before the House on 28th June 1978 be approved and that the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Various Goods) (Termination of Imperial Quantities) Order 1978. laid before the House on 28th June 1978 be approved.

§ Lord TREFGARNE
My Lords, is the noble Lord proposing to speak to both orders simultaneously?

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY
My Lords, the noble Lord beat me by a short head because in the next paragraph I was about to say so. I am in fact moving both orders together if it meets the convenience of the House.

§ Lord TREFGARNE
My Lords, I am not sure it is in order to move both together. The noble Lord can speak to both together but he will have to move them both separately. I shall wish to speak to them separately.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY
My Lords, that is a technical point. In point of fact at the end of my speech the Motion will be put for the first one and later on formally I shall put the second one. Is that clear to the noble Lord?

§ Lord TREFGARNE
Clear, but not very satisfactory.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY
My Lords, for the convenience of the House as I have just indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, unless any noble Lord objects, I shall speak on the two orders at the same time and later the votes will be taken separately.

§ Lord TREFGARNE
My Lords, I am not going to prevent the noble Lord from doing that, I am sure it would be to the convenience of the House, but I wish that the noble Lord had told me through the usual channels that that was what he intended.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY
My Lords, I am sorry. I had no indication of any disapproval of this practice. It is normal practice which we have followed on previous orders. I agree that, so far as my remarks are concerned, I cannot move the two orders at the same time. That is an impossibility anyway. May I say to the noble Lord that I am sorry about this matter, but we can easily cope with the problem, and if he wants me to do so I will take the first one first.
I turn first to the draft Coffee and Chicory Extracts proposals. The main effect of this draft order is permissive, in that it allows coffee and chicory extracts (which include the popular "instant coffee" products) to be sold in a range of prescribed metric quantities from 1st July 1979 in addition to the existing range of imperial prescribed quantities as set out in the 1963 Weights and Measures Act. The new metric range has already been accepted for application throughout EEC countries and is included in the EEC Coffee Extracts and Chicory Extracts Directive adopted in June 1977.
The draft order now before the House therefore has the effect of advancing our metrication programme for prescribed quantity goods while at the same time implementing the main weights and measures obligations of the EEC Directive. 905 By making the order at this time sufficient notice is given to British packers so that plans can be laid for the production of metric packs by July next year which is when, under the Directive, there will be free circulation of such packs throughout the EEC.
The Directive allows a choice of either 250 grams or 300 grams as part of the metric range and allows 150 grams as a transitional size for four years. In a range where the smaller sizes are 50 grams, 100 grams and 200 grams, the more logical choice for the purposes of price comparison is 300 grams as included in the draft order. Industry and consumer interest share this preference. There is no call for the transitional 150 grams to be included in the United Kingdom range. It is necessary therefore to let packers and importers have early indications of our intentions on these aspects and on other ancillary provisions relating to weight marking on containers and other marking requirements.
I now turn to the Various Goods proposals. This draft order deals with prepacked pasta, flour and flour products, dried fruit and vegetables. At present under the Weights and Measures Act and subsequent orders, these products may be sold in either a range of prescribed imperial quantities, or in a range of prescribed metric quantities. The purpose of this order is to phase out the prescribed imperial range.
The important consumer interest underlying the policy of successive Governments in introducing prescribed quantity legislation, is the avoidance of confusing pack sizes which make "value for money" comparisons difficult. It is therefore very much in the consumer interest that the existence of two different ranges of sizes is not prolonged. The House has recognised the validity and sense of this and has already approved orders setting out terminal dates for the use of imperial quantities for sugar, bread, edible fats, biscuits, salt, tea, cereal breakfast flakes and oat products.
This draft order differs from previous "cut-off" orders in one very important respect. Unlike those orders, this order does not set cut-off dates for the sale of imperial packs by retailers in addition to 906 cut-off dates for packers and importers. This change—the dropping of the legal requirements on retailers—is consistent with the Government's current approach to metrication announced by the Secretary of State on 16th May, and indeed was specifically referred to in that announcement.
This draft order therefore sets "cut-off" dates only for packers and importers. The dates in question are 31st August of this year for packers and importers of imperial packs of pasta, flour and flour products, and 31st December of this year for packers and importers of dried fruit and vegetables. Stocks of imperial packs produced or imported before those dates will he allowed to work naturally through the chain of distribution. This approach of course places some responsibility on the shoulders of the trade and industry for not artificially extending the period of consumer confusion by deliberately stockpiling imperial packs.
I should also make it clear that this order has the full support of the food manufacturers. It fully takes into account their plans, and they need the certainty that this order will bring. In the case of flour in particular, however, the order is very much a rounding-off exercise. Virtually all flour now in the shops is already in the metric sizes.
So far as the consumer is concerned, there are important safeguards both on information and price. Under the existing marking regulations the new sizes have to be clearly marked with the words "Metric Pack" and the equivalent imperial quantity has to be marked for at least a year after the cut-off date. As regards price, it is important to ensure that consumers continue to get at least the same value for money. There is a standing reference to the Price Commission on metrication, whereby price adjustments over the changeover period are carefully monitored.
Experience to date—and this is now substantial, including the metrication of flour, which in practice has already taken place—shows that manufacturers and retailers are not using metrication as a pretext or opportunity for bringing in disguised price increases. It is a tribute to all concerned that it has been unnecessary so far to contemplate the use 907 of any statutory intervention on pricing because of metrication, and there is every reason for confidence that future changeovers will go as smoothly as those of the past. My Lords, both these proposals have been the subject of extensive consultations and have the support of all concerned. I commend them to the House.

§ Lord TREFGARNE
My Lords, I should have thought that the two orders are sufficiently different to have been taken separately. However, the noble Lord has chosen to speak to them together. I am not complaining of that; I feel sure that that is for the convenience of your Lordships, but it causes me to pause a moment in order to dwell on both of them separately, though I hope not to weary your Lordships. The first order can he dealt with fairly swiftly. It is in essence a permissive order, and one which we certainly do not wish to oppose, nor for that matter even comment on in detail. However, the second order is a rather different kettle of fish. The second order—which, as the noble Lord reminded us, had its genesis back in May, when a very similar order was before your Lordships, but was not pursued—is a compelling order; it requires certain action to be taken. I must say that it is a considerable improvement upon the one which the Government chose not to press a couple of months ago.
There is one point in particular I wish to ask the noble Lord about. It concerns penalties and sanctions. We are anxious to ensure that when packers or distributors—who are the groups of people covered by the order—are compelled to change to metric packing they should have sufficient time to alter their machinery as necessary, bearing in mind that this is a lengthy and often expensive business, and that they are not exposed to too draconian penalties when, and if, they find themselves unable to do so. We are in no way condoning anyone to break, or seek to break, the law, but we consider that the penalties ought to he appropriate to the 908 nature of the offence, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to explain to me exactly what the penalties are under the order.
I should like to say, in parenthesis, that I passed information on this point to the noble Lord's office before lunch, and I should have thought that in the same breath it would have been understood that I wished to speak to both orders separately, and that is why I was rather surprised when the noble Lord launched his combined speech. However, I have promised not to pursue that point, and I will not. The question of the penalties is the point which I want to put to the noble Lord. We must be satisfied that the penalties are appropriate to the nature of the offences, because there are some very strongly held, if mistaken views, about the phasing out of imperial measure, and here we have an order which seeks to do just that. I hope that the noble Lord can help me.

§ Lord MONSON
My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether it will be legal for manufacturers to continue to print the imperial equivalents on the new metric packs after the 12 months' interim period has elapsed?

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY
My Lords, I should like to deal with that last point right away. There will be a period of 12 months after which that marking will disappear. The period might be extended, but at the moment the plans are to phase out after 12 months.

§ Lord MONSON
My Lords, does the noble Lord mean to say that it will be illegal to print both the metric and the imperial equivalents on the same pack after the 12 months interim period?

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY
That is the inference from what I said, my Lords. As to what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, mentioned regarding penalties, I should say that the selling of old imperial packs by the retailer is permissive and may continue for some time to come. It depends on the type of business, the size of trade, and similar factors; and we must be completely reasonable about this matter. The order has been drawn up after consultation, and the manufacturers and the importers all agree about it and 909 want to get the position sorted out. The only penalties which would arise are the usual penalties relating to weights and measures which apply at present on imperial packs and which would apply on metric packs. For instance, if the noble Lord were selling apples from a barrel at a certain price for so many grammes and he was short-weighting his customer, he would be "nicked" (as the common phrase goes) by the police, or he would be reported. That is the kind of situation I have in mind. The penalties laid down by the Act are a £100 fine for a first offence, and a £250 fine and/or three months imprisonment for a second offence. Those are the usual penalties which apply under the Weights and Measures Act, and which would apply under this proposal.

§ Lord TREFGARNE
My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. Am I right in thinking that these are penalties under the 1963 Act? I was about to complain that the penalties were to be too draconian, but having heard of them, and bearing in mind the year in which they were set, I now wonder whether they ought not to be revised.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY
My Lords, that is not a matter for consideration now. However, the noble Lord's point is noted, and I have no doubt that it will also be noted elsewhere following the debate. What I have stated is the position at the moment according to my information. There was quite severe criticism over the order, as I readily accept. It ran into considerable Parliamentary opposition, and the Government revised the whole order. This is the revision which apparently meets everybody's point of view, including that of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. So there is no difficulty now.

§ Lord GRANVILLE of EYE
My Lords, the Minister has dealt with food manufacturers and retailers. What about the large warehouses which carry considerable stocks in imperial measures?

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY
My Lords, those stocks will get into circulations through the normal channels. Manufacturers and importers with stocks at the present moment have time to get 910 them into circulation. They have agreed to this; they want this move. Therefore, they will take their own measures to get these stocks into circulation and get them off their hands. No food manufacturer should be keeping large stocks of food preparations for a long period of time, over 12 months, in my opinion.

Lord SPENS
My Lords, the Minister dealt with penalties for perhaps giving short weight, but what about the case of someone who continues to prepack in Imperial weights? To what sort of penalty will he be subject?

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY
My Lords, the noble Lord has me completely caught for a second on that one. I shall have to obtain the information for the House and see that it is placed on record, but I have not got it at the moment. I shall obtain the information a little later and see that it is made available to the House, possibly by the device of a Written Question, so that the information is readily available.