HL Deb 16 December 1985 vol 469 cc595-8

7.14 p.m.

Lord Brabazon of Tara rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th November be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order standing in my name on the Order Paper be approved. In moving this order I can assure noble Lords that although it concerns goods for sale, nowhere does the draft order say on which day of the week they should be sold.

The order would, if approved, amend detailed weights and measures provisions for the sale of food and drink contained in three statutory instruments that were approved by your Lordships' House in August 1984. Amendment is necessary from time to time to take account both of recent European Community legislation in this area and of developments in the market place. A first amending order was approved by your Lordships' House last June. The second order that we are now debating would further amend and redefine certain provisions.

Two amendments stem from EC legislation. First, the draft order would implement a recent council directive that expands the existing Community range of prescribed sizes of still table wine to bring in the larger sizes of 6, 9 and 10 litres. It also adds a small size, 18.7 centilitres, but with the proviso that it is for consumption on board ships and aircraft. That is to facilitate the use in the European Community of a "single serving" size, which is already popular in international travel.

Secondly, it would implement provisions in the EC food labelling directive that require foods that are not sold by weight or volume to be prepacked only if the number of items enclosed is either indicated on the container or is clearly visible and may easily be counted through the packaging.

Turning now to those aspects of the draft order that stem from domestic rather than European considerations, we have been asked to review the weights and measures provisions regulating sales of pies and flans filled with non-meat products to ensure that they are no more restrictive than those for their non-vegetarian counterparts. Articles 3(a) and 4(a) of the draft order would together achieve that aim by exempting those products from the weight marking requirements that currently apply and by applying instead the general provision that they should be sold by number.

Two further amendments proposed in the order would make it clear, first, that fresh fruits and vegetables that may be sold by number when whole may continue to be sold in that way when divided into portions; for example, half-cucumbers and pieces of melon; secondly, that single portion vending machine packs of beverages such as tea and coffee are not required to be marked with a statement of quantity, although such a statement would be required if the same product were to be packed for sale in the usual way.

The opportunity has also been taken, based on 15 months' experience of operating the 1984 orders, to improve and clarify the wording in two respects. The first amendment deals with multipacks; that is, collections of individually-wrapped goods offered for sale in a single container. The amendment would make it clear that the protection offered to consumers when goods are sold in multiples is no less than that provided when they are sold individually. Secondly, the transitional provisions in Article 16(3) and (4) of the Miscellaneous Foods Order are to apply to all food packaged in accordance with previous legislation, whether such food is to be sold by retail or otherwise.

The combined effect of the amendments proposed in the draft order would be to ease the burdens of complying with the law without reducing the effective protection which it affords to consumers. As such they have the support of consumers, traders and enforcement authorities. Finally, I am sure your Lordships will wish to know that this order was considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments but the committee did not draw the special attention of your Lordships' House to it. With that, I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th November be approved.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the substance of the draft order. We on this side of the House do not intend to oppose the order because it seems to be fairly straightforward. On the other hand, I should like to make one or two points of a relatively minor nature and of which the noble Lord might like to take account.

This order derives from the powers of the Secretary of State pursuant to the Weights and Measures Act 1963. In the preamble to the order, it is stated that the Secretary of State, has consulted with organisations appearing to him to be representative of interests substantially affected by this Order". I wonder whether the organisations that the Secretary of State has consulted are the same as those considered to be representative in 1963 or whether time has moved on and there are other organisations that are perhaps now more representative than those valid at the time of the original primary legislation.

I have one further point to make in this respect. The whole question of consultation in regard to orders is one that sooner or later the Government might wish to examine. After all, techniques in market research have moved on since 1963 when the primary legislation was passed, and there are a multitude of ways not just of consulting the organisations which represent particular trades but of going further, behind that, and obtaining views from a sample of traders themselves or the consumers. I offer those thoughts as a possible improvement on the method of consultation which the Government might wish to consider.

On the order itself, clearly EC directives must be put into our legislation and we have no problem with this. However, I am a little perplexed that the one glass measure of still table wine is to be available only on ships and aircraft. I do not understand why it is not to be available elsewhere, but I am sure there is a good reason and perhaps the noble Lord can enlighten me on that point. I have no problem at all with the vegetarian versus non-vegetarian argument. Clearly something that is available to non-vegetarians should be available to vegetarians, and that seems to be perfectly sensible.

I have a further question and this relates to the single portion vending machine packs of beverages not marked with quantities. It seems to me to be not beyond the reach of technology to have quantities marked. There may be some reason why they should not, and I am sure the noble Lord will be able to explain.

My final point is that we on this side of the House welcome anything that eases the burden of compliance with regulations. Without intruding again on the debate taking place here on another matter—on either side of the debate we are now having, as it were—I would say that the job of shopkeepers, whether open on Sundays or only on weekdays, in complying with legislation is extremely difficult. The weights and measures authorities and the local authority inspectors have the duty of ensuring that legislation is complied with. It seems to me that there might be some merit in the Government's looking carefully over the next year or two to see whether such orders could be simplified. I am thinking particularly of shops which are run by people who, for all sorts of reasons, do not necessarily understand English as well as they might, for example, the ethnic minorities. Perhaps some method could be found of making this secondary legislation a little more understandable to the person trying to run, say, a corner shop in the middle of Birmingham on a Sunday morning and who finds such legislation difficult to understand. Having said that, I would add that we on this side of the House have no objection to the order and will not oppose it.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for his reception of the order. In reply to his question about consultation, may I say that time certainly has moved on since 1963, but the list of those thought most likely to assist in the drafting of legislation is kept constantly up to date. On these orders we consulted some 70 organisations representing manufacturers, importers, packers and retailers. Those representing the fruit and vegetable trade and pie manufacturers gave a particular welcome to the relevant provisions in the order. None of the trade interests consulted expressed opposition.

On the other side of the coin, we also consulted all the relevant consumer organisations; that is, the National Consumer Council, consumers in the European Community Group, the Consumers' Association and the National Consumer Protection Council. None of those organisations voiced any concern at the proposals. So I believe that we have covered the ground fairly well.

On the second point, concerning the 18.7 litre size which is to be available on aircraft and ships—

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, not 18.7 litres.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon; I meant centilitres. I see it is referred to as a single glass. Yes, indeed, this was agreed for use on forms of transport. I can tell the noble Lord that it is possible that proposals will be put forward in due course which will permit them to be sold generally, and if that happens we would agree; but at the moment there does not appear to be much demand for that size. I can assure the noble Lord that should such a demand materialise we will do our best to accommodate it. I am sure the noble Lord would rather have half a bottle and that is permitted—not that I am offering!

On the subject of the single size vending machine, again we consulted with all interested parties and we have had agreement from the consumer organisations that this is a satisfactory way of dealing with the matter. They are designed to produce a drink of a desired taste. Apparently quantity is not relevant to the consumer. If the consumer knows he is going to get one cup he is satisfied with that—at least, that is what we are assured by the consumer organisations.

I take the point about making these orders more simple to understand, particularly for those shopkeepers belonging to the ethnic minorities of whom one sees so many these days. On the whole, I think that such orders make life easier rather than more difficult, but I take the point made by the noble Lord.

On Question, Motion agreed to.