HL Deb 07 December 1981 vol 425 cc1203-9

2.54 p.m.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Dried Fruits and Vegetables) (Amendment) Order 1981, which was laid before your Lordships' House on 19th October, be approved, and to speak to the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Coffee and Coffee Mixtures) Order 1981, which was laid before the House on 19th October and the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Grain and Farinaceous Products) Order 1981, which again was laid before your Lordships' House on 19th October.

For the convenience of your Lordships, it is my intention, unless any Member of your Lordships' House were to disagree, to move together the three orders which stand in my name. Although they cover widely varying types of prepacked foodstuffs, all of them share the common characteristic of being necessary so as to meet our obligations to the European Communities under a directive which is commonly referred to as the Prescribed Quantities Directive. More formally and more correctly, its reference is 80/232/EEC. This particular directive was adopted in January 1980. We are required to implement it within two years of that date.

Those of your Lordships who have studied this directive closely and have noted the large array of products that it covers might be surprised that the three orders which are before your Lordships House today are sufficient to discharge our obligations. This is because, as an optional directive, it merely requires member states not to prohibit the marketing on their own territories of those products included in the directive in the prepacked quantities specified in its annexes. Naturally enough, these are expressed in metric units. It does not require that only those quantities be marketed. It follows from this that where United Kingdom law currently places no restriction on the sizes in which the relevant products may be prepacked we are already in full compliance with the directive. This is the case for all of the non-food items and for many of the food items within the scope of the directive.

Your Lordships will, however, know that for most of the staple foodstuffs which are sold in the United Kingdom our weights and measures legislation has required for many years that these be prepacked only in specified and easily related sizes. These prescribed quantities are important to consumers as they enable ready price comparisons to be made between different sizes and different brands of goods. However, for most of the directive's food items we have long since anticipated the agreement that was finally reached on ranges of sizes and have already passed the subordinate legislation to permit the metric sizes in question. Only in a very few cases was agreement in doubt before the directive was adopted and it is these items that are the subject of the three orders which we are considering today.

I must stress at this stage that nothing in the directive requires us to prohibit sizes that we already allow. Specifically this means that we do not have to abandon our existing Imperial quantities. Your Lordships will be aware that it is not part of this Government's policy to compel industry by law to go metric or to seek to influence its own judgment on the timing of any change-over to metric sizes. Consequently, there will be no further compulsory metrication orders. Packers of the foods which are the subject of the second two orders will therefore have the option of marketing them either in metric or Imperial sizes, provided of course that they select sizes from the permitted ranges. The position is slightly different for the foods which are covered by the Dried Fruits and Vegetables Order. I shall come later to that point.

Your Lordships might possibly consider it proper that I should try to deal with each order in a little more detail. Your Lordships will note from Article 2 of the Grain and Farinaceous Products Order that the foodstuffs which this order covers are concerned with such things as barley kernels, pearl barley, rice and, of course, sago, semolina and tapioca which are familiar to many of your Lordships in the eaten form every day. Not all of these are included in the directive but they are often packed and marketed by the same suppliers. Therefore it makes sense to have the same ranges of sizes for all these products, as is already required under the Weights and Measures Act 1963. The particular size of 375 grammes is not required by the directive but it has been included at the request of the trade to run in parallel with the popular existing Imperial size of 12 ounces. Further, although the existing 1 oz and 2 oz sizes have been deleted from the permitted Imperial range, they may still be marketed in the United Kingdom as the order raises from ½ oz to 75 grammes (I understand that that is in the region of 2¾ oz) the quantity below which there is freedom to pack in any size.

The title of the Coffee and Coffee Mixtures Order more readily indicates its coverage. However, I should explain that this does not include the product commonly known as "instant coffee". This particular product is dealt with by a rather different industry and was the subject of an order introducing metric sizes in July 1978. However, we are now extending prescribed quantity control for the first time to Viennese coffee; that is, coffee with fig flavouring. This and the other mixtures covered by the order have been included so as to make the total coverage consistent with separate regulations made by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the previous Administration, the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, from whom we shall be hearing soon no doubt. These particular orders define the products which may be described as coffee or coffee mixtures. This has been accepted by the trade involved in this particular brand line and other interested parties as a sensible step which avoids potential confusion.

The order also makes it clear that coffee bags are subject to the same control as coffee which is packed in the more conventional "loose" form. I understand that for these purposes we can call it the "percolator" form; the kind of beans or powder that one puts straight into a percolator or brews up in the saucepan. In this connection I have to draw the attention of your Lordships to the extracts from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, copies of which are available to your Lordships.

The Coffee and Coffee Mixtures Order includes a few metric sizes not required by the directive. Some are the equivalent of existing Imperial sizes but others simply reflect market trends. More importantly, we have freed packs above 5 kg from prescribed quantity control. This makes it possible for catering packs, which I understand represent about 60 per cent. of sales in the United Kingdom, to be sold without the danger of prosecution. This arises because although the legal restriction on the sizes of these packs applies only to retail sales, the growth of cash-and-carry type stores often leads to what are essentially catering packs finding their way, perfectly legitimately, to the retail market.

Before I leave finally this particular order, your Lordships may care to note that attached to it, on pages 4 and 5 of the order, is a list of statutory instruments. We hope that this should be helpful to trade and other interests, as I am sure it will be very helpful to your Lordships if you wish to go right through the fascinating details to be found there, as the list shows those orders and regulations which have been made to date amending those parts of the 1963 Act concerned with either prescribed quantities or with container marking requirements. Your Lordships would be able to work out from this that it is only jam and a few related items where prescribed Imperial quantities have not been either replaced by, or supplemented by, metric quantities. These few remaining products are likely to remain in Imperial sizes for some years to come, as it would be imprudent to introduce metric sizes until agreement is reached within the European Community on what the metric range should be. I am given to understand that this is not proving easy, mainly because many of our European partners are themselves in Imperial sizes and are not sure what metric sizes would be most suitable for these particular products.

Finally, I should like to turn to the first order which stand in my name, the Dried Fruits and Vegetables (Amendment) Order. Unlike the first two orders to which I spoke—the second and third on the Order Paper—this particular order does not contain any Imperial sizes. This is for one particular and, no doubt, sound reason; it is because they were phased out by the previous Administration. What the order does is merely to add two metric sizes, 1.5 kg and 7.5 kg, included in the Prescribed Quantities Directive but not allowed for in our own existing legislation. There is of course no compulsion on the trade to use either of these sizes but this merely gives them permission and allows them to do if it is convenient.

The interests who might have some concern in these particular orders—trade, consumer and enforcement interests—have been fully consulted on all three orders in my name today. There has been a wide measure of agreement on these three orders. Existing separate marking regulations required dual marking—that is to say, a declaration of quantity in both Imperial and metric units, for the foods covered by the second and third orders on the Order Paper. This will protect consumers' interests for so long as both metric and Imperial quantities are marketed. My Lords, these orders, which I move together, are necessary to meet our obligations to the European Community, and we believe that they command a wide measure of support from trade interests and indeed from all the other interests in the country. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Dried Fruits and Vegetables) (Amendment) Order) 1981, laid before the House on 19th October, be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)

3.7 p.m.

Lord Bishopston

My Lords, your Lordships' House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for the way in which he has introduced this measure and for the detailed comments he has made in support of it. Your Lordships' House may be equally relieved that I am going to make only a few comments and pose one or two questions. It will be accepted, as the noble Lord has said, that these orders are necessary to implement our obligations under the Community regulations. I am not sure to what extent I had some responsibility in my previous life in another place, but we accept that these changes are necessary—especially to comply with the requirement that we take action within two years. They are necessary also to enable our food producers and food processors to supply the home market and especially the export market. Although the noble Lord said that this is something in which we have the freedom to proceed at the pace we require, with Imperial as well as with metric measures, in fact, especially for the export markets, the pace will be dictated or influenced by the requirements of that market, particularly among our fellow EEC members as they also go towards the implementation of the EEC regulations. This is important if we are to compete with our competitors in Europe and in other places. So the metric system will have to come in at a pre-determined pace. This is a point we note and do not necessarily disagree with.

I am very pleased that the noble Lord has said that the organisations have been consulted and I believe he has given some indication of the agreement which they have with the orders. I was going to ask what reactions resulted but apparently they were nothing to worry about. It would be interesting if the noble Lord could say whether there were representations about the cost to the industry because it does of course mean alternative packaging, weighing, processing and so forth. I should like to know if the noble Lord can give us any indication of the cost to the food industry and eventually, of course, to the consumer.

In these orders the prescribed range of metric quantities relating to pre-packaged food is specified and one wonders if there is any time limit for any producers and those in the trade to comply with the orders—or is it indefinite and a situation where one changes only to suit the demands of the trade and especially the export market? The noble Lord made a brief reference to the first report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which had some rather critical comments to make on the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 and Coffee and Coffee Mixtures Order. It is true, of course, that the memorandum from the Department of Trade does help to explain some of the questions raised by the committee. I quote from the committee report. They say: So far as coffee bags are concerned, however, it seems to the committee that what the order says is not precisely what it means. It provides that the 'contents of coffee bags shall be pre-packed only if they are made up in one of the following quantities by net weight'. They go on to say: Literally that seems to contemplate the pre-packing of the contents of coffee bags independently of the bags themselves … the sense intended to be conveyed, however, as is confirmed by the memorandum of the Department of Trade, is that coffee bags may be pre-packed only if the contents of the bags in a pack are of the specified amounts". We have the benefit of the Department of Trade memorandum. I am wondering whether, when the order goes out, the explanation of the Department of Trade and the explanation we have had from the noble Lord this afternoon will be quite as clear to the industry and indeed to those who have to operate the order. On the question of coffee, the joint committee had some grounds for discontent, as they say. It would he useful to know if any action has been taken to clarify the matter a little more when the order goes out to those who have to operate the order eventually. With those few comments we support the order.

Lord Derwent

My Lords, my noble friend went rather quickly and got me slightly muddled. I understood him to say that instant coffee is not coffee. What is it?

3.13 p.m.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me springing swiftly to my feet, first of all to try to answer as many as I can of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, as well as to preclude any further real fireball from my noble friend Lord Derwent, as well as others that might come down. I hope my noble friend will permit me to try to deal with some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, and I think I may be able to reply to what instant coffee comprises or not from some fascinating footnotes to the orders which are before your Lordships.

The first major point raised by Lord Bishopston concerned export markets, and he was worried about the metric packs that the packers and indeed the food industry would be able to package in metric form. I understand, in regard to the two orders concerning coffee and grain and farinaceous materials, that until now these two substances were only permitted to be packaged in Imperial measures. The orders we are moving today will permit the trade to package these substances in metric form. I understand that the food processing and packaging industry are very keen to be able to do this. We hope that the orders settle the fears of the packaging industry.

With regard to any possible additional costs, either to the industry or to consumers, arising from these orders, no critical points have been raised with us either by the consumer interests or by the industry. I understand that we have even been praised by some organisations. There was one letter on grain and farinaceous products from the National Council of Women. I understand they raised minor points about the Imperial sizes to be retained. This point was successfully dealt with by letter from the Government. So I hope that some of the more important fears expressed by consumer interests, from this body and others, have been settled satisfactorily.

The noble Lord raised one point of what I might call criticism from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I understand that the committee produced some suggested amendments. It could be argued that the drafting could have been improved, but certainly we are satisfied, and we understand that the trade and consumer interests affected by the small minutiae of these orders are satisfied, that the meaning is clear to them. I hope that answers the fears that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston. If I have missed any point of substance, I hope he will permit me to scrutinise his remarks in greater detail and write to him on those and any further points he wishes to raise.

My noble friend Lord Derwent asked me a question about instant coffee. I am given to understand that the substance covered by the orders we are discussing is coffee in beans, or ground into a form which is acceptable to percolators or other machines which will produce breakfast ready or evening ready coffee, whereas I understand that what is technically known as instant coffee is an entirely different product. I referred to instant coffee being covered by other regulations. I have one or two interpretations, and I see there is an excellent comment on carbohydrates which I think covers many of the products in instant coffee. It gives some excellent details about neutral polyhydroxyl alcohol containing carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, in which the hydrogen and oxygen occur in the same proportion as in water, but this does not include any polysaccharide which is not metabolised by man. I think these carbohydrates are the contents which are added to what we call in our non-technical way instant coffee. I have not anything more detailed to assist my noble friend with regard to the products that we call instant coffee. Given the polysaccharides and the other interesting products, I am sure my noble friend will permit me to write to him with a precise and brief definition of what we call instant coffee, as against what is more normally drunk straight from the percolator, or roasted in beans or taken in other forms.

Lord Bishopston

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he not accept that if his definition of instant coffee was put on every jar sold there would be grounds for further confusion?

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I shall not attempt to follow the noble Lord's comment. He may well find his remarks spreading far and wide beyond the normal record of your Lordships' House. We may also need spectacles and reading glasses—the hobby-horse of one or two noble Lords—to read all these products on these two, four and six ounce jars in the supermarket. Speaking for myself, I find it hard enough to decipher the metric content or the Imperial content in the jars and to decide which of the two jars gives me better value. We will certainly consider what the noble Lord has said. I will not attempt to follow his turn of phrase. I thank him for his support and beg to commend the order.

Lord Leatherland

My Lords, I think the noble Lord used the phrase "coffee roasted from the leaves". Surely it is from the beans and not from the leaves.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I am afraid I am not able to answer the noble Lord's point without notice. If I may consult the record, I will see if the noble Lord is accurate on that point, and I may get in touch with him.

On Question, Motion agreed to.