NOMINAL QUANTITIES FOR PRE-PACKED PRODUCTS
(15570/04, 8680/06)
Letter from Rt Hon Ian McCartney MP, Minister
for Trade, Investment and Foreign Affairs, Department of Trade
and Industry/Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Chairman
I wrote to you on 19 September 2006[150]
to highlight the possiblity of a scrutiny override on this proposal
during the recess. I am writing now to inform you of the outcome
of the Competitiveness Council meeting on 25 September at which
the proposal was on the agenda for political agreement.
In the event, political agreement was reached,
based on a compromise proposal which was put forward by the Finnish
Presidency a few days before, and modified on the day in the light
of the discussion. This agreement is for full deregulation of
all pack sizes, except those for wines and spirits, subject to
a transitional period during which Member States with existing
restrictions may maintain them for 3.5 years for milk, butter,
coffee and pasta and 4.5 years for white sugar. (Taking account
of the 18-month transposition period, this would mean that restrictions
could be maintained on these products for five, or six, years
respectively, after the coming into force of the new Directive).
As I mentioned in my earlier letter, events
in Brussels have moved very quickly on this proposal and I regret
that there has been no opportunity for the Committee to fully
consider the proposal, or the evidence submitted to the Committee
by UK stakeholders, before the proposal was put foward by the
Finnish Presidency for political agreement.
We decided to support the compromise proposal
because we thought that early agreement on this dossier was an
important signal of the Council's commitment to the better regulation
agenda and its support for the Commission's aims for the simplification
of European law. In doing so, of course, we gave full weight to
the deregulatory approach the Committee itself has favoured. While
it would have been procedurally possible for the UK to abstain
on the specific issue, it would have conveyed a most unfortunate
wider impression, entirely at odds with our strong support for
better regulation and legislative simplification at the European
level.
We have throughout been keen to ensure that
the interests of all UK stakeholders were taken into account and
we thought that reasonable arguments had been put forward by some
industry and consumer groups for the retention of fixed sizes
for a few staple products. At the same time we had always taken
the view that a large measure of deregulation was called for.
In the negotiations in Council, it became clear that there was
no support for fixed sizes for some of the products of particular
concern to UK stakeholders, such as tea and bread. While the political
agreement now reached will not therefore be satisfactory to all
UK stakeholders, we consider that it does offer overall benefits
both to business and to consumers.
The proposal agreed by the Council will not
impose any new burdens on business. The removal of fixed sizes
will not impose any direct costs on business—although we
are aware that a few industry sectors have expressed concern that
they may in time need to pack in a wider range of sizes to meet
consumer or retailer demands. Against that, the removal of fixed
sizes will, as the Committee have noted, give greater freedom
to packers and greater choice to consumers.
The Committee have consistently stressed the
importance of allowing consumers and producers time to adapt to
the removal of restrictions. The transitional period agreed by
the Council allows scope for those Member States who already have
in place restrictions on pack sizes for those particular sectors
to retain them for a limited time. The UK does have mandatory
specified quantities for all five products and if the proposal
is agreed in this form, we would of course consult with interested
UK retailers, packers and consumers over the most appropriate
transitional provisions within this framework. This would be within
the context of our ongoing work to simplify and modernise weights
and measures legislation.
Now that the Council has agreed its position,
the European Parliament, which has so far favoured retaining permanent
restrictions for a slightly wider list of products, will have
the opportunity to re-consider the proposal in light of the Council's
position. We do not at this stage have any information on when
the proposal may be given a second reading, though it would normally
be expected that this would be within three months of the communication
of the Council's position. It is too early to say how the amended
proposal may be received by the EP, though the proposal for transitional
periods covering most of the products of concern to the EP should
improve the prospects for early agreement.
I will of course keep you informed of any further
progress on this proposal.
4 October 2006
Letter from the Chairman to Rt Hon Ian
McCartney MP
Thank you for your letters of 19 September and
4 October which were considered by Sub-Committee G on 19 October.
We regret that it was necessary for you to over-ride
scrutiny. It is particularly unfortunate that we did not have
the chance to have the requested meeting with you before the discussion
in Council, given that we have received and analysed several submissions
from producer and consumer representatives which raised some interesting
points on which your views would have been welcome. While we appreciate
the difficulties posed by the Recess and the needs to take decisions
in Council on this long-outstanding matter, we would still appreciate
your views on a number of issues since the legislative process
appears to be far from complete.
As you note in your letter, the Committee has
consistently supported the deregulatory approach as a broad basis
for the legislation. We are therefore pleased to note that the
compromise reached at Council is essentially in line with that
approach. On the other hand, as you acknowledge, our support for
deregulation has always been predicated on the condition that
a reasonable transitional period would be allowed to enable affected
producers, retailers and consumers to adapt to the changes. We
therefore seek your assurance that you are satisfied, following
your consultations with the affected producers, retailers and
consumers that the transitional periods adopted will indeed allow
reasonable time for them to adjust to the new deregulated market.
We would also draw your attention to our consistent
reminders about the need to consider the interests of vulnerable
consumers, especially the visually-impared. You will be aware
that the RNIB has emphasised that the existence of guidelines
in the UK for staple goods provides some consistency to such vulnerable
consumers, at least so far as their most common everyday purchases
are concerned. We have repeatedly urged the Goverenment to consider
whether the introduction of tactile identification symbols, perhaps
based on Braille, might be a feasible way of meeting those needs
and are disappointed that the Government does not appear to have
pursued that suggestion. Similarly, the RNIB has advocated the
alternative of introducing radio frequency identifiers, on which
the Government has not commented. We believe that the adoption
of this Directive might be an opporunity for the Government to
take the initiative in promoting the examination of an imaginative
EU-wide solution to this problem, in consultation with the RNIB
and similar bodies, and are reluctant to see that opportunity
pass without serious examination. Your considered comments would
be welcome.
All the submissions that we have received have
also raised with us concerns over the question of the UK's derogation
for small businesses from the Unit Pricing Directive. As we understand
it, those concerns involve the possible conjunction of full deregulation
without unit pricing in smaller shops. We are surprised that this
has not been addressed in your correspondence and would be glad
to know if the Government has given any thoughts to the dynamics
between these two pieces of legislation and whether it might be
sensible to lift the derogation for small businesses in these
circumstances.
We look forward to your response on all the
above questions and would be grateful if you would also keep us
informed of the progress of any exchanges between the Council
and the European Parliament about the Directive.
20 October 2006
150 Correspondence with Ministers, 40th Report of Session
2006-07, HL Paper 187, p 540. Back
| 
