asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if his attention has been drawn to the report which refers to deep concern amongst Dublin retailers at the fact that recent checks of packs in stores have revealed weight deficiencies in many of them; and whether he has any power to act in this matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Weight Deficiencies in Packaged Foods.
27.
Mr. O'Leary
I have seen the report referred to in the question, and I endorse the advice given therein that retailers should bring instances of such deficiencies to the notice of the local inspectors of weights and measures who will take appropriate action against the offenders.
Is the Minister not aware that under existing law there is no obligation to insert on a packet any specific avoirdupois weight in the absence of the packet bearing on its exterior a declaration as to the contents, with one exception, that is, butter, packed by a co-operative society which may be sold only in units of one pound?
That is very interesting but has absolutely nothing to do with this question which refers to weights not being the weights as represented on the packet.
No, it does not. It speaks of weight deficiency. That is what the Minister does not understand. The average woman going into a shop and buying a packet of peas believes she is getting 16 ounces of peas in the packet.
That was yesterday's question.
No, it is not. If the Minister does not want to learn, he can stay in his ignorance. I am trying to help him. This thing is a great abuse and the Minister can correct it by simply saying: "You must stick on the packet a small label saying: This packet contains 12 ounces" or 14 ounces or 16 ounces, or whatever it is. That is all anybody wants. Let them sell 12-ounce or 8-ounce packets if they want to. You ordinarily sold seedless raisins in 14-ounce packets and there was no disguise about it; it was written on the outside of the packet, but it is wrong to sell a packet which the ordinary woman thinks contains 16 ounces when it actually contains only 14 ounces. And then you have a placard in the window proclaiming: Cheap so and so.
In return for his enlightenment, could I now enlighten the Deputy, and remove some of his ignorance on this particular question? The report referred to in the question by Deputy O'Leary deals with weight shortages in packs supplied to retailers, not consumers, by packers and suppliers, and these shortages, if passed on as of a certain weight to the consumers could leave the retailers in the position of being taken to court for breaking the law. It does not raise the question of stamping on the package the weight it should contain.
I am not talking to the astrologers and soothsayers who advise the Government but I am talking to a Minister in an Irish Government and asking him if he is aware that there is a great abuse in ordinary simple people going into shops and being deceived. They should not be deceived, but they are, and it can be remedied by asking the vendors to put a note on the packet of what the packet contains.
That arose on a question yesterday but in the intervening 24 hours a new question which is covered by law has been raised and answered. This problem is covered by law and the advice given by the writer of the article in the journal referred to by Deputy O'Leary to report to the appropriate officer so that legal action can be taken is correct. The law is adequate to meet the case raised on this question. I know what is agitating the Deputy's mind and I dealt with it yesterday.
Is it not inferred in the question that packages of products presumed to contain one pound contain a few ounces less? That is what is implied in the question and also implied in the article about which Deputy O'Leary asked this question: that packages presumed to contain 16 ounces in fact contained only 14 ounces. Was that not what was implied?
Purporting to contain 16 ounces, would contain less.
Presumed to contain 16 ounces.
Purporting.
Not purporting.
If a consumer bought such a packet from a shopkeeper the shopkeeper would be liable under the law and could be prosecuted under the law. The article suggested to shop-keepers that they protect themselves against being so brought to court by weighing and checking on the weights of various commodities purchased by them for sale to the public and reporting shortages to the appropriate authority, which can be dealt with.
They were presumed to contain 16 ounces. That was the text of the article.
No.
Question No. 28.
Does the same apply to the sale of bread?
If Deputies would read the article it would be clear to them.
I read the article and I suggest that the Minister should read the article again.
Can I get an answer to my question? Does the same apply to the sale of bread?
I have called Question No. 28.
If it is sold as being a certain weight and is less than that weight it is a breach of the law.
And you did not change it.
Be careful there. It was the Labour Party that changed it.
You still have it.
Bread is much dearer now, of course.