HC Deb 13 December 1926 vol 200 cc2654-89
Mr. HURST

I beg to move, in page 7, line 7, after the word "accident," to insert the words or other causes beyond his control and. The object of this Amendment is to protect traders who have acted bona fide where a deficiency has been due to no act or Volition on their part. As the Bill now stands, it exempts the trader where a deficiency was due to a bona fide mistake or accident, but there may be other reasons for a deficiency of which the trader is perfectly innocent For instance, in the case of articles like peas or flour, loss by evaporation is apt to occur, and such evaporation could not be described as either a mistake or an accident. It is to cover such cases as this that I am moving that these words be inserted.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I am certainly prepared to accept this Amendment. It really ought to have been in the original draft of the Bill, and it was in terms recommended in paragraph 36 of the Food Council's Report.

Mr. BARNES

I am sorry that the President is accepting this Amendment; it appears to me to cancel any value possessed by Clause 13. One can easily see that a trader, under this Amendment, could establish practically any case outside the provisions of this Bill. I am surprised that the President is accepting the Amendment, and, Personally, I shall oppose it.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I should like to point out, again, and to put it on record, that this was recommended in the Report of the Food Council. In paragraph 36 they say: We recommend that certain safeguards should be included in the proposed new Act to protect traders from prosecution in cases where the deficiencies are the result of circumstances beyond their control. Those are practically the exact words of the Amendment.

Mr. BARNES

The point I wish to emphasise is this: I claim that that recommendation of the Food Council is carried out by these words of Sub-section (2) of Clause 13: if the defendant proves to the satisfaction of the Court that such deficiency was due to a bona fide mistake or accident in spite of all reasonable precautions being taken and all due diligence exercised by the said defendant. All who have had experience of prosecutions under Acts of this description know that the Court always interprets such words with the fullest possible leniency. If this Amendment be carried, it will destroy very largely the utility of the Bill so far as prosecutions are concerned.

Mr. WOMERSLEY

I hope the President of the Board of Trade will adhere to his offer to accept this Amendment. I would point out to the hon.

Gentleman who spoke last that there are circumstances, such as a malicious or fraudulent act on the part of a servant of the shopkeeper, which are not covered in the Bill as it stands, at any rate in the opinion of high legal authorities There may also be pilferage, say, from a van, either by the vanman or by some outside person. Those, surely, are circumstances over which the trader ha, no control, and I think the President is right in accepting this Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted,"

The Committee divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 79.

Division No. 558.] AYES. [7.40 p.m.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Fairfax, Captain J. G. Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Falle, Sir Bertram G. Knox, Sir Alfred
Ashley. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Fenby, T. D. L'ster, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Fermoy, Lord Little, Dr. E. Graham
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Fielden, E. B. Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Finburgh, S. Loder, J. de V.
Balniel, Lord Foster, Sir Harry S. Looker, Herbert William
Barclay-Harvey C. M. Fraser, Captain Ian Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Barnett Major Sir Richard Fremantle, Lieut. Colonel Francis E. Luce, Major-Gen, Sir Richard Harman
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) Gates, Percy MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Bennett, A. J. Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton MacIntyre, Ian
Berry, Sir George Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham McLean, Major A.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Macmillan, Captain H.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Goff, Sir Park Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Boothby, R. J. G. Gower, Sir Robert McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Grace, John Macquisten, F. A.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. w. Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Briant, Frank Greene, W. P. Crawlord Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Briggs, J. Harold Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Malone, Major P. B.
Briscoe, Richard George Gunston, Captain D. W. Margesson, Captain D.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Merriman, F. B.
Bullock, Captain M. Hall, Vice-Admlral Sir R.(Eastbourne) Meyer, Sir Frank
Burton, Colonel H. W. Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Caine, Gordon Hall Harland, A. Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Campbell, E. T. Harrison, G. J. C. Moore, Sir Newton J.
Cassels, J. D. Hartlngton, Marquess of Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennlngton) Morder, Col. W. Grant
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Haslam, Henry C. Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Chapman, Sir S. Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Murchison, C. K.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Neville, R. J.
Christie, J. A. Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Newman, Sir B. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Clarry, Reginald George Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Cobb. Sir Cyril Herbert. S. (York, N. R.,Scar. & Wh'by) Oakley, T.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel Hills, Major John Waller O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Hilton, Cecil O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D.(St.Marylebone) Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Crawfurd, H. E. Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Perring, Sir William George
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Holland, Sir Arthur Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Pilditch, Sir Philip
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro) Howard-Bury, Lieut,-Colonel C. K. Power, Sir John Cecil
Curzon, Captain Viscount Hudson, R. s. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Davies, Dr. Vernon Hume, Sir G. H. Ramsden, E.
Dawson, Sir Philip Hurd. Percy A. Rawson, Sir Cooper
Dean, Arthur Wellesley Hurst, Gerald B. Remer, J. R.
Drewe, C. Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Rentoul, G. S.
Eden, Captain Anthony Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Richardson, sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Edmondson, Major A. J. Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) Jacob, A. E. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Elliot, Major Walter E. James, Lieut-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Rye. F. G.
Ellis, R. G. Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Elveden, Viscount Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.) Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Sandeman, A. Stewart
Everard, W. Lindsay King, Captain Henry Douglas Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Sandon. Lord Steel, Major Samuel Strang Wells, S. R.
Savery, S. S. Storry-Deans, R. Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) Streatfield, Captain S. R. White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew,W) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Shepperson, E. W. Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Slaney, Major P. Kenyan Tinne, J. A. Wise, Sir Fredric
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Titchfield, Major the Marquess of Womersley, W. J.
Smithers, Waldron Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Sprot, Sir Alexander Waddington, R. Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.) Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland) Watson. Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) Major Cope and Mr. F. C.
Thomson.
NOES.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hardie, George D. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O. (W. Bromwich)
Ammon, Charles George Hayday, Arthur Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Attlee, Clement Richard Hayes, John Henry Saklatvsla, Shapurji
Baker, Walter Hirst, G. H. Salter, Dr. Alfred
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Scrymgeour, E.
Barnes, A. John, William (Rhondda, West) Sitch, Charles H.
Bromley, J. Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Buchanan, G. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Stephen, Campbell
Charleton, H. C. Kelly, W. T. Sullivan, Joseph
Cluse, W. S. Kennedy, T. Sutton, J. E.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Lansbury, George Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Compton, Joseph Lawrence, Susan Thurtle, Ernest
Connolly, M, Lee, F. Tinker, John Joseph
Dalton, Hugh Lowth, T. Townend, A. E.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Lunn, William Vant, S. P.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Day, Colonel Harry Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Dennison, R. March, S. Whiteley, W.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity) Montague, Frederick Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Gardner, J. P. Naylor, T. E. Wright, W.
Gillett, George M. Oliver, George Harold Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Paling, W.
Groves, T. Ponsonby, Arthur TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grundy, T. W. Potts, John S. Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr
Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.) Purcell, A. A. Charles Edwards.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Richardson, R. (Hounhton-le-Spring)
Mr. A. R. KENNEDY

I beg to move, in page 7, line 14, to leave out the words "butchers' meat" and insert instead thereof the words "articles of food."

The object of this is to extend the provisions of the Sub-section to other articles of food than butchers' meat. A butcher is excused in the case of deficiency of waste caused by unavoidable evaporation or drainage. Butchers' meat is not the only article of food that is subject to both those matters, and it is thought desirable to extend the protection afforded by the Sub-section to other articles.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I think this is a reasonable Amendment, and I invite the Committee to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. G. HARVEY

I beg to move, in page 7, line 24, after the word "modifications," to insert the words "additions and amendments."

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I am advised by my experts that this is not good drafting, and with regard to the invoice in the Schedule dealing with warranties, I have an Amendment down, and there is a further Amendment in the name of another hon. Member which I also propose to accept.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. TAYLOR

I beg to move, in page 7, line 31, to leave out from the word "Act" to the end of line 34.

There is a further Amendment in my name which is consequential, and I should like to argue the case on the first Amendment. I hope the Minister may find it possible to give some explanation of the reasons which have prompted him to insert these words. I find this Clause is a repetition of Section 5 of the Margarine Act, 1887, with the exception of the words I propose to omit. That Act was passed for the purpose of dealing with the, sale of a single commodity which, by its nature, rather lent itself to fraud in a way that cannot be said to be true of the long list of commodities now covered by this Bill. Since 1887 there have been considerable developments in the distributive trade, and conditions have been considerably altered. You have had the great growth of the trustification that is going on generally expressing itself in the retail trade through the great growth in the number of shops owned by limited liability companies having branches in most of our large towns and thousands of employés—a totally different set of conditions 'from those that operated when the Margarine Act was passed. The result is that certain practices have grown up in the distributive trade as the result of the constant pressure put upon the managers, and through them upon the assistants, to make up their stocks and to prevent complaints with regard to leakages. A letter reached me on Thursday morning from the executive of the Shop Assistants' Union. I will hand it to the right hon. Gentleman, if he desires to see it, but I propose not to use the name of the firm or the individual who sent it. This is what it states: Mr. … of … has reported that he this week left the service of Messrs. … Limited, on account of the unsatisfactory manner in which the firm wished to make him responsible for stock. Rather than remain in the firm's employment he gave a month's notice, but two or three days afterwards was summarily dismissed. He states that there are constant changes of management, and it is impossible, under the system adopted by the inspector of the firm in dealing with stock, to bring out satisfactory results to the stocktaker. Frequently goods are reduced in price after being invoiced at the branch, but no credits are given. He states that he has written evidence of the firm's refusal to give credits. In one case jams and tomatoes were reduced by a penny, and had to be sold at the reduced rate and dealt with on this basis for stocktaking, but no credit was given. Bacon would sometimes be reduced 1d. or more per lb.—also butter. All boxes and bags are charged up, but would not realise anything like the price they were charged at when they were sold as scrap. One method of dealing with reduced prices is illustrated in the following. Loganberries were selling at 1s. 1d. per lb., and they were reduced to 10½d., but no credit was allowed. The manager objected to this drastic reduction, and was told they would be credited at 1s. in the stocktaking. In addition to that one might go on with a whole list of things which would tend to show up this point, that there 's constant pressure upon the managers and the assistants, particularly in the combined shops, to make up their stocks by short weight or perhaps by overcharging.

I think the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that in a system of this kind where the old relationship between the individual employer and the assistant has disappeared, it is only reasonable that when an assistant is to be charged with an offence under this Act it should only be after a proper inquiry and with reasonable and adequate safeguard. The Clause, as it stands, seems to me to he a direct incitement to an employer to avoid the consequences of a prosecution by transferring the prosecution to the employé. The experience of the working of the Section of the Margarine Act has been very unsatisfactory even from the employers' point of view. I have here a Memorandum issued on 18th November by the Federation of Grocers' Associations of the United Kingdom. Provision is made under Sub-clause 5 enabling the employer to bring the person whom he charges as the actual offender before a Court. Similar provisions are made under existing Acts of Parliament, but are not widely used because it is felt to be an unpleasant and undesirable course for an employer to lay an information against his own assistant, and practically act as prosecutor. 8.0 P.M.

The reasonableness of that contention is really quite evident. If the employé is the one who has committed the offence, without the knowledge or connivance of the employer, and it has been a deliberate act of fraud, the employer is now placed in the position that a prosecution can only take place on an information laid by him after the matter has been taken to Court. That seems to me a very invidious position in which to place the employer, and an altogether unwieldy and unwise way of meeting the difficulty. In the case of a dishonest trader the Clause is so drafted that it is almost a deliberate incitement to getting out of a prosecution by connivance. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept the terms of the Amendment, perhaps he will give the matter his consideration between now and Report so as to meet the point. Instead of the assistant being placed in the position that he may have pressure put upon him by the employer to accept responsibility for an offence under this Bill and dragged into Court and the onus of the responsibility transferred from the employer—and that is a, very difficult position for the assistant as well as for the employer—under the terms of the Amendment the situation would be that when the offence had been proved in the Court the inspector could, if he so desired, launch a prosecution direct against the employé. I suggest that that is a more satisfactory position both for the assistants and the managers and also for the employers. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, even if he cannot accept the terms of this Amendment, will give some sort of a undertaking or pledge that between now and the Report stage he will try and meet the point which I have raised.

The PARLIAMENTARY-SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick)

This Amendment must be taken into consideration along with the succeeding Amendments standing in the name of my right hon. Friend (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister). In the first place, think the Mover of the Amendment overlooks the fact that what he wants to do would necessitate two separate trials, whereas the Clause as it will be amended by my right hon. Friend will seek to bring about a decision by one hearing. That is obviously what is desired. The Mover of the Amendment made a great point about the danger under the Clause as it stands of collusion being brought about between an employer and his employé. I think that point of view is exaggerated, and I cannot imagine anyone outside a lunatic asylum resorting to collusion to avoid any of the risks that would arise under this. I am not versed in the law, but I should suppose that persons would lay themselves open to the most serious penalties and odium, beside which any penalties or odium which would come to them arising out of the danger they wish to avoid would be insignificant. Furthermore, I do not see that collusion, if it were resorted to, would be any more difficult under the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. I think he exaggerates the danger and I think he has exaggerated this point of collusion. I am afraid my right hon. Friend will not be able to accept the Amendment.

Mr. OLIVER

May I again press this point on the Parliamentary Secretary 7 Would it be fair, under the Clause as it now stands, to bring a shop assistant into Court and let a trial take place against a shop assistant and at the same time to allow a large measure of immunity to be given to his employer? How many employers or principals in any of our large shops, and in establishments belonging to multiple companies, would be brought up and convicted under this particular Clause? It would be the man who serves over the counter, and to a very large extent the employer would be absolutely immune. I am not speaking as a lawyer, but I believe that an employer is liable when an employé acts against his orders, but in this case you are practically giving immunity to the employer and putting the onus of the responsibility on the person who serves the goods over the counter. That is a very unfair position. Let the responsibility be on the persons who are getting the benefit of any error which the shopman may commit. Any error, short weight or overcharging, would undoubtedly go to the advantage of the company. It would not go into the pockets of the shop assistant, and while it would be easy for the principal to show that he did not authorise this act, on the other hand, he would have any advantage which might accrue from delivery by short weight over the counter. For these reasons I appeal for further consideration in regard to this particular Clause. If it cannot be accepted in its present form, I suggest that it might be considered in a modified form.

Sir B. CHADWICK

I have told the hon. Gentleman that it would not usually be the man serving over the counter against whom proceedings would be taken, in most cases, and in any case an inspector already has the right to proceed against the man or the employer. It must not be supposed that the Amendments which my right hon. Friend is going to move are going to cause a prosecution if the employer likes to lay the blame on the shoulders of somebody else. This Clause, as amended, is being brought into line with other legislation and notably with the Merchandise Marks Bill, which we passed in this House the other day, and is the best way of dealing with the matter.

Mr. OLIVER

If a publican servant sells beer to a man who is drunk, the publican is responsible for the act of his servant. In this particular Clause, if a shop assistant sells butter over the counter which is of short weight, although the advantage may go to his employer, it will be the assistant who will be responsible and not the employer. I submit that there is no equity in that position.

Mr. BARNES

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can give the Committee a little more information on this point. Generally, provisions of this description are employed in Bills of this kind for the purpose of meeting the position where an employer hands out or gives a quantity of any particular commodity, food or milk or whatever it may be, to an employé. The employé works under managerial supervision, and if he is moved away from managerial supervision, adulteration may take place on the part of the individual employé. I am sure that the mover of the Amendment is not moving it from the point of view of eliminating the prosecution of an individual like that, who deliberately adulterates when moved away from supervision. But my hon. Friend is desirous that any responsibility of an employer for various reasons shall not be placed upon the shoulders of an employé. We have to realise that the economic position of certain employés in relation to their employers can be made very difficult, and if the line of the offence is not altogether clear perhaps a provision of this description does induce or hold out a certain amount of temptation to the employer to urge an assistant to assume his blame and to go into Court and to take the odium which a prosecution represents. I do not want to support this Amendment if it cuts in the other direction and places a consumer or an employer at the mercy of an employé who has the goods properly given to him and then adulterates them after he moves away from supervision, but I should like, before the matter goes to a Division or is finally settled, to have an assurance a-to what the legal result would be.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I think there has been a little misunderstanding on the part of one or two of the speakers as to what this Clause does. This Clause does not say who is to be prosecuted—the employer and not the servant or the servant and not the employer. The Bill lays down that anybody who sells wrongly is liable to be prosecuted and the first duty of the inspector is to find out, if he can, who is the proper person to prosecute. That is one of the reasons why I do not want to accept the Amendment. The inspector has to decide, if he can, who is to be prosecuted and, as a matter of fact, in nine oases out of ten, the inspector will prosecute the employer and not the servant. When an employer is prosecuted he has the defence open to him that the Act was committed by a servant without his authority and after his taking all proper precautions. The only thing that would happen if I accepted this Amendment would be that there would be two trials instead of one which would be very inconvenient. It would not relieve the employer of what the hon. Gentleman calls the odium of having to cite a person in his service to stand his trial. Instead of having one hearing you would have two hearings, which would he a very inconvenient matter. If the hon. Gentleman will look he will see that this Clause as amended, in the way I propose to amend it, is a model Clause which the experts have drafted after going into this difficult ease. This Clause is drafted in the light of the experience which has been gained and it only deals with a case where an employer says that he was not at fault. Observe what the employer has to prove. He has to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that he has used due vigilance, and that the act has been done without his consent, connivance or wilful default. He must not only prove that he did not know about it, but that he took all proper steps to make sure that the Act of Parliament was carried out on any premises under his control. It shall be open to the prosecution to cross-examine anybody who is brought there and gives rebutting evidence. When we consider what we are doing under this Clause, that we are only dealing with the proper provision to be made where an employer who is prosecuted sets up a defence that it is not his own fault but the fault of somebody in his employ, I think that on consideration the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Clause as amended, as I propose to amend it, in the way in which the experts are agreed, is the best form for the purpose.

Mr. OLIVER

If you bring the employé into Court and he is summarily convicted, not only will he be compelled to pay the fine imposed upon him, but in addition he may lose his job for having violated the Act. In consequence, the man would be penalised twice by having to pay the penalty under the Bill and losing his employment.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

We cannot legislate and say that if an employé commits a criminal offence he is only to be fined by the Court. We must leave the employer to deal with him. I cannot say whether the man will get the sack or not. We cannot possibly put into an Act of Parliament a provision to say that a servant shall be convicted of a criminal offence but he shall not lose his job. There will be cases where he ought to lose his job.

Mr. OLIVER

The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my point. I cannot see why the employé should be brought into Court at all. Whilst he is working for a company or a firm the employer is responsible for his act, and if his act is an illegal act, then the employer will be able to deal with him, because he holds the man's employment in his hands.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

That is going a great deal too far. Take the case of a Co-operative Society, where the responsible people, the directors and managers, have published the Act and have instructed the employés exactly as to what they are to do to comply with the Act, and have given them the right to deliver, and the servant for his own purpose, in, say, a milk-round as in the evidence of the Essex County Council, where he takes a little out of a pint of milk, and goes on doing that; obviously, the man ought to be prosecuted, and convicted. If he could not be prosecuted and convicted, no reputable firm would have a proper hold upon their men. Surely, the hon. Member would not say that in such a case where it is wilful default on the part of the employé and done for his own advantage, that he ought not to be prosecuted.

Mr. TAYLOR

I should like the right hon. Gentleman to understand that it is not the object of the Amendment to remove responsibility from the employé in those cases where it is a wilful default, for his own personal benefit. Nothing is further from my thoughts. The most vicious part of the Clause is the power which it gives to the employer to have a prosecution transferred at his instigation by laying an information against his own employé. He can under this Clause have the prosecution transferred from himself to the employé. That is altogether an unreasonable power. The employer ought to be in the position of having responsibility for the acts of his servants, so long as it can be shown that that is the normal custom of the occupation, and the employer should only be entitled to relieve himself of the odium that would attach to the prosecution where he could show to the satisfaction of the Court that it was the employé's deliberate intention to defraud the public for the benefit not of the employer but of the employé himself. That is a very different matter from the kind of practice that is carried on with regard to overcharge or the giving of short weight.

I do urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that the proper and legitimate course would be the course laid down in the Amendment, namely, that when the offence had been proved, there should be no penalty attaching to the employer if he were able to prove that it was done without his knowledge and consent, and was the wilful act of the employé, seeking to profit himself. In those circumstances, if the Amendment were carried, the inspector would simply prosecute the employé. That seems to be a much more reasonable position than to leave the employer in such a position that the prosecution could he transferred from the employer to the employé.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

Not "transferred." There is no obligation on the employer to do this. If the hon. Member looks at the Sub-section, he will see that it provides that where the employer is charged with an offence, he shall be entitled, on information duly laid by him, to have any other person whom he charges as the actual offender brought before the Court at the time appointed for bearing the charge. They are both there.

Mr. TAYLOR

The employer is charged with the offence, and then by giving days' notice, he can have the employé brought before the Court, and if he can show to the satisfaction of the Court that the act was the result of the employé's disregard of his instructions, the charge will be transferred to the employé. I say that that is a power given to the employer which conduces to all kinds of trickery with a view to avoidance of the penalties of the Act, and places the employé in a very unsatisfactory position. The proper course would be for the employer to rid himself of his liability and responsibility before the court, and then for the prosecution to take place, not at the instigation of the employer but rather through the inspector, who is the normal instrument for seeing that the public are protected.

Mr. STEPHEN

I support the Amendment and press the President of the Board of Trade to reconsider the matter. It is probable that the employé in cases like this would be put into a very difficult position. The employer is going to lay an information if he thinks it is against his employé. He will go to the Court and prosecute his employé, while he himself is defending a charge against himself, and endeavouring to bring about his own acquittal. I submit to the President of the Board of Trade and the Solicitor-General that it will put the employé into a very unfair position. There is the difficulty of the employé not being able to provide a suitable defence for himself. He is not in a position to employ such eminent legal authorities as the Solicitor-General or other well-known counsel. The employé is therefore placed in an inferior position. At the same time, he has a consciousness that if he is to make out his case against his 'employer, he is likely to get into a very unfortunate position with regard to the whole section of employers in the district. If a well-known employer was being charged under this Act, the employé might be placed in a very awkward position.

This point is of very great importance to men and women of the working class who, unfortunately, have to work for other people in order to obtain their livelihood, and it is the business of this House to try to give these people as adequate protection as possible. I do not think we shall do that by the emendation suggested by the President of the Board of Trade. Let the prosecutions if necesary, be started, but do not let them be part of one prosecution, one of the parties trying to unload the burden on to the other.

I submit that the employé is not getting a fair trial as compared with the employer. There is need for the alteration. The right hon. Gentleman took the case of someone delivering milk and taking so much out of each measure. In that case the employer has his remedy. He can charge his employé with theft, but in the Bill, as it stands, there is no adequate protection for the employé. If we were dealing with people of equal standing, if the employé were a person of the same economic security as the employer, there would not be very great hardship in the matter, but you have to 'el-umber that working men have always to take into account their prospects of employment in the future, and if an offence is committed, possibly one for which the employer is fundamentally responsible, it is going to be a difficult matter if the employer can come to the Court and lay the whole blame on the assistant. If the employer is able to make out the case that he himself is not to blame, and that his employé has acted counter to his instructions, then it is within the power of the inspector to take action in the matter. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is going to be more considerate in his treatment of the Amendment. No attempt has been made to delay this Bill, and we expect a member of the Government to give full consideration to the points that are brought for ward. I hope he will explain his views with regard to the unfair position of the employé as against the employer when the case conies into Court, and how his proposed Amendment is going to do anything to alleviate the position so far as the employé is concerned.

Mr. WOMERSLEY

There are a number of other Amendments dealing with the same subject on the Paper and I believe many hon. Members, and the President of the Board of Trade, are desirous that a Clause should be evolved which will be fair to employer and employed. The position under the Amendment which has been moved appears to be this, that the onus of charging the assistant will be on the employer. That is a very undesirable thing. In the retail trade generally there is a very good feeling between employer and employed, and to insert such an Amendment as the present one would be very detrimental to the relations which now exist between the two. I suggest that later Amendments on the Paper will amply meet the point that has been arranged without this objectionable feature of the prosecution being on the employer. It is much better for the inspector to decide who is the guilty person, to charge him, and then prove it. Otherwise you will have all the employers going to the Courts to prove that they are not responsible, and in that case the employé would be in an absurd position.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

I support the Amendment. I think the employer and not the employé should have the onus of proving that there has been no default under the terms of this Bill. Any member of the Shop Assistants' Union will inform the hon. Member who has just spoken that owing to the pressure brought to bear on shop assistants, particularly by the large multiple stores, the employés in many eases are obliged to do things in their normal work that otherwise would not be done. If the onus is placed on the employer, I am convinced that the illegitimate pressure on the part of employers would no be so harsh as it the moment. Let me quote from a case recently submitted to the Shop Assistants' Union, and I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to pay particular attention to this point. This was in connection with short weight: In connection with the question of short weight, an interesting revelation was made to the Legal Department of the Union (Shop Assistants' Union) during the past week by a member who had Voluntarily given up his situation rather than continue to work for a firm who made the giving of short weight a deliberate policy. The member in question had been acting as manager and stated that the firm were in the habit of sending representatives actually to give instructions to the staff as to how best to carry out this policy of short weight. It will he seen that. unless the individual who received these instructions from the big multiple firms, I do not refer to the ordinary small retailer, refuses to carry them out, he must become a Voluntary thief on behalf of the employer or else he must leave his employment if he hopes to maintain his moral character: This instruction included advice as to judging which customers could be dealt with in this way with least risk; how best to divert their attention from the actual weighing of the goods which were being purchased; how to place articles on the scales so that the balance should be turned by the force of the impact, and various other artfully conceived ideas by which the customer could be defrauded.

Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD

Can the hon. Member give the name of the firm?

Mr. WILLIAMS

It can be given privately if the hon. and gallant Member requires it. One can see the position in which the employé is placed. Unless he carries out these instructions—

Mr. WOMERSLEY

Is the hon. Member in order in making charges against people in this way without stating the name of the firm? This is a general allegation against the whole trade, and it will be very serious to the trade if it goes out to the Press. I say that it is a very exceptional case.

The CHAIRMAN

I think the hon. Member is not out of order.

Mr. WILLIAMS

I am making no attack upon any particular individual or firm. If I singled out one firm and gave the name the hon. Member would be the first to rise to his feet and declare that it was a gross attack upon a person or firm who were not in a position to give a reply to the statement. I have said that if the hon. and gallant Member requires the name in private it can be supplied almost immediately. But the point is that unless the employe—there are so many people on the streets in search of work who are quite capable of carrying out managerial duties as well as the ordinary duties of the average shop assistant—carries out the instructions which are handed to him he is not going to hold his employment for very long.

In these circumstances the Bill, designed to ensure that people shall have full weight and honest measure, ought to' make the employer responsible for any defrauding that takes place, and not to leave the onus on the poor assistant, who is between the devil and the deep sea if he fails to carry out one of the instructions of the inspector. I would not suggest that this practice is universally acted upon, or that there is even a fairly considerable proportion of traders who operate on these lines, but if an infinitesimal number of people do utilise the method alleged by this particular ex-manager, the Government would be justified in accepting the Amendment. It is not the responsibility of the employé, but it is the responsibility of the employer. If the employer knows well that full responsibility rests on him, whether a private individual owning one or more shops or a large multiple store or limited liability company, he will see to it that no dishonesty takes place under the terms of this Bill. Give the employer the opportunity to do fairly by the customer and to be fair to his, employés, and I am sure that employers would welcome the general application of honest measures.

Mr. ELLIS

But for the rather easy accusations which have been flung about without being backed by any definite evidence, I should have 'hesitated to say anything on this subject; but I and other hon. Members represent a very deserving body of men who to-day are inspected pretty thoroughly and who have to put up with a good deal, and I want to say a word for them. Let us take the case of any man who is charged with adulteration or contravention of the Bill. What really happens is that the goodwill of the shop is charged. In that goodwill, in the case of the ordinary man, a good number of his assistants are concerned. That man and all his assistants who are running straight are concerned in finding out who is the thief. Surely, then, it is much better that the question should be dealt with at one time and be got rid of at one time. It is said that there is hardship on the individual man so to treat him, it being alleged by the hon. Gentleman opposite that in some way or other an assistant may be victimised, but the hon. Member seems to have forgotten that there sits a Judge in the Court, a Magistrate, whose duty it is—the duty is generally well carried out—to protect everyone concerned, and, before any conviction can take place of the alleged victimised shop assistant, evidence has to be produced to satisfy the Court that he has done wrong. I suggest that in all the circumstances there is no hardship at all.

Mr. BUCHANAN

Some of us feel that this is a very important Amendment, and that it would have been only courteous to the Opposition if the President of the Board of Trade, who was in charge of this Amendment origiNally, had waited until the Debate was finished. If there had been some other kind of Opposition and some other interest at stake the right hon. Gentleman would have waited. I think he has shown shocking discourtesy.

Sir B. CHADWICK

May I interrupt? It was not my right hon. Friend who opened the discussion on this Amendment but myself.

Mr. BUCHANAN

I do not want to belittle the Parliamentary Secretary, but the most effective speech and explanation on the Amendment were given by the President of the Board of Trade. I am not in the least impugning either the good faith or capacity of the Parliamentary Secretary. Most of the cross-questioning took place with the President of the Board of Trade, and for the right hon. Gentleman to leave in the midst of the discussion is to show sheer disrespect. to the Opposition. No one can accuse us of blocking this Bill. On the first occasion on which we feel strongly that a big issue is raised the President walks out in the middle of the Debate and refuses us the ordinary courtesy of waiting until the discussion is finished. That treatment is not good enough. On this Amendment the President of the Board of Trade cited as his best example the Essex County Council case. A man carries with him milk and butter, and he goes to a household and says, "Here is a pound of butter," which in reality is not a pound of butter. It is said that it would not be fair if the assistant pocketed the difference. That was his classic example. I grant that if the Essex County Council, under similar circumstances, sent out a man, and that man deliberately reduced a package of butter from a pound to something less, and accumulated the difference in the operation and pocketed that difference, he is justly entitled to punishment. That does not mean to say that. it is the best method. The Solicitor-General and the Lord Advocate know many crimes, but what often arises is not merely the crime, which is simple—the statement of the crime is generally simple—but what is of more importance is the method of punishing that particular criminal.

The subject which we are debating is not what the President of the Board of Trade would make us believe. This Bill is not brought in to punish traders as a whole, but the minority who offend. The fact that the Bill was introduced shows that there is a need for some kind of Measure being undertaken. As to the particular point of the Essex County Council, that man at present can be prosecuted under the common law for theft. I have yet to learn from the Solicitor-General, whose great knowledge of law we all respect, that it is not illegal at present for a person to take an employer's goods and to dispose of a certain amount of them, and to pocket something which he is not entitled to pocket.

If an employer sends out an employé with 12 lbs of butter to be sold at 2s. a lb., then 24s. ought to be returned to the employer, and if the employé pockets any money which has been illegally extracted from the customer he can be prosecuted by the employer for theft. That is the present position of the law, and why should not that be done rather than the procedure now proposed. I assume this Bill is, to a large extent, dealing with multiple traders. I do not mean it is dealing with them specially, but I think in regard to this matter the multiple trader is looming in our minds more than the small shopkeeper. Let us take the case of a multiple trader who is charged with selling underweight in one of his shops, say in Birmingham. If he is found guilty the fact will be advertised all over the country, and will prevent people from trading in that trader's shops elsewhere. If the offence is in Birmingham it will be advertised in Glasgow. If he is a private trader the Co-operative organisations will let it be known; if it is the case of a Co-operative Society, the private traders will let it be known, and the prosecution of a multiple firm may involve the reputation of a firm with branches throughout the length and breadth of the country.

Thus the Parliamentary Secretary will see the absolute necessity which exists for the employer trying to force the blame on to some other person, and of trying to find a scapegoat. Where it is only a small trader with one shop, it is a different matter; but where there are many shops, the thing becomes much more serious. Take another instance, which I have quoted in another connection previously, namely, the licensed trade. Supposing an assistant sells whisky under the proper strength or under measure, the licence holder is in law responsible, and is prosecuted, but it often happens that the licence holder in order to escape the possible withdrawal of his licence induces the assistant to become the scapegoat and to take the responsibility for any offence which may have been committed. I do not allege that this applies to every licence holder, and this Bill, though it deals with bad measure, does not allege that every person in Britain who carries on a small shop, sells bad weight or bad measure. It is brought in to protect the majority, and to, deal with the minority of traders who from time to time act wrongly. I do not wish to draw a line of cleavage between the Co-operative firms and the big multiple private firms. What would either do if charged with an offence which involved the whole reputation of the concern? They would engage the best possible counsel and leave no stone unturned to defend their position. They might even secure some of the legal luminaries who are Members of this House to defend them. The shop assistant does not appear in Court with such able assistance.

Mr. ELLIS

The shop assistant has his union. If there was any question of victimisation or any attempt to do anything of that kind, is it conceivable that the union would not take up the case?

Mr. BUCHANAN

True, but is the union in the same financial position to engage counsel for large numbers of their members as compared with one multiple firm? The comparison is not good; and I would also point out that shop assistants are not organised as compared with other workers.

Mr. ELLIS

The co-operative union is organised.

Mr. BUCHANAN

Yes; they are very well organised because in certain cases it is a condition of employment. For many reasons it is well known that shop assistants generally are not organised in the same way as engineers, railway workers and others. Even if the union were providing counsel in the large number of cases with which they would be confronted as against those in which one multiple firm is concerned they could not be expected to provide such strong counsel as the multiple firm. I am not going to impute anything against Magistrates or to say that they are biased, but it is obvious that in a small local court a King's Counsel, who may have been on the threshold of being made one of His Majesty's judges, is liable to impress the Magistrate with awe. It is only human nature that a man who is so much higher than he is in the legal profession, should influence the Magistrate in forming a judgment. I remember that in Glasgow it was a great dodge for people who could afford it, to bring leading counsel into the lower Courts because they felt that these counsel could sway the Courts.

The Parliamentary Secretary ought to meet us on this point. We do not want to obstruct the Bill; we want to see it on the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment. The actual words suggested may not be the best words. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor) is not an expert draftsman and he is not above taking advice or assistance from the Parliamentary Secretary or any of his officials. He will be glad to go into the question of an alternative form of words to meet our purpose. The Solicitor-General and the Lord Advocate are going off for six or seven weeks' holiday— [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—well, I can only speak for the Lord Advocate, and perhaps nobody in Scotland gets a very long holiday at any time—hut in any case they are both men of knowledge and capacity and they are surely capable of drafting a form of words to meet our case. We are asking for simple justice in this matter, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give us a promise that he will meet us some part of the way between now and the Report stage. We look upon this as a serious matter to the shop assistants of the country, and we should be lacking in our duty if we allowed this Clause to go through without the strongest possible protest from these benches.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Supposing a milkman is charged with selling bad milk, is he to be prosecuted under this Bill? Another point is this: In the co-operative societies we employ a manager to supervise the individual servants, and we are willing to take the responsibility for anything that occurs in the shop. We think it would be a very dangerous thing to put the responsibility on to a girl or a youth. What happens in our society can happen much more readily with private traders, because I think they engage their employés at an earlier age, and the probability is that a prosecution taken against any of these boys and girls might be hurtful to them. If the Board of Trade are going to put through this Bill, will they be willing to advise the Minister of Mines to extend it to coal?

The CHATRMAN

It cannot be in order on this Amendment to discuss coal.

Mr. SULLIVAN

I think coal is relevant. If a weigher gives under weight, is the manager of the colliery prosecuted?

The CHAIRMAN

This is a Bill dealing with food, and coal is not food. The question, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. SULLIVAN

I do not want to argue against the ruling of the Chair, but I think my question was quite relevant.

The CHAIRMAN

There may be differences of opinion, and I, being in the Chair, think it was not relevant.

Mr. SULLIVAN

I have to accept your ruling. I appeal to the Government to consider very carefully before they reject this Amendment. It would be a great injustice to servants, as the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has said, who have difficulty at times in conducting their defence in Court.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. TAYLOR

Before the Parliamentary Secretary replies, will he be kind enough to deal with the point which I put when the Minister was in the House, as to the reason for the insertion in this 'Clause of the words "or principal"? The Clause, with the exception of those two words, appears to be a complete copy of Section 5 of the Act of 1887, and I particularly asked the Minister to explain why those words have been inserted, but so far we have had no reply. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to suggest to us some method of meeting the objections that we have raised. It is very unfortunate that the President of the Board cannot be here to tell us what the position of the Government is, but if the Parliamentary Secretary is authorised to speak for the Government on this matter, and can tell us that some concessions are going to be made between now and the Report stage, we shall be delighted to hear him tell us so in that quiet, simple, and honest way that has endeared film to the House.am sure that he himself, whatever his chief thinks, must see the reasonableness of the case we have put forward, and I hope he will explain fully the point upon which the Government have not touched, as to what are the reasons for inserting the words "or principal" in this Clause. I am certain that the considerations which induced the people who framed this Clause some 40 years ago for the purpose of avoiding fraud in one particular commodity, and that a commodity which lends itself to the practice of fraud, must have been very different from those which moved the President to allow the insertion of these words.

Sir B. CHADWICK

Hon. Members opposite have made a very great effort in stating their case clearly, but I must say that I think it has been exaggerated, rather losing a sense of proportion and losing sight of the main object of the Bill, which is to provide that people shall have delivered to them what they pay for. As to great hardships being inflicted on employés, and as to the improvement that would be effected if this Amendment were accepted, in the first place, I do not think there is very much difference between us, because what we want to do will be done in one set of proceedings, and what the hon. Members opposite want to do will require two sets of proceedings. With regard to the specific question as to the introduction in the Clause of the words "or principal," they seem to me fully to embrace all the people who could he at the head of any business or business establishment. In one case you might have an individual who is an employer or a company which is an employer, and on the other hand you might have a private individual at the head of his establishment, or you might have a principal of a firm or a principal in a company. I think I cannot give a clearer definition of the use of the words "or principal" than that. In regard to the question about milk, obviously if a person delivers short milk, he will be liable under the Bill just as if he delivers short anything else, whether he be employer or employed. I must, therefore, ask the Committee to resist this Amendment.

Mr. BARNES

I am sorry we cannot have a definite statement as to the position put forward here, because I think it would clear away some misunderstanding. Is this Clause as it stands limited to the protection of the employer against an employé who commits the offence without the knowledge of the employer? If it is limited to that, I do not think my hon. Friend will oppose it, but if this Clause permits an employer to transfer his liability for an offence, by collusion or anything else, to the employé, then it raises difficulty and unfairness. If we can have a clear legal statement about that, I think it would help to remove the difficulty.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I think the position has been made absolutely clear by my hon. Friend, and the hon. Gentleman opposite need be under no illusion as to the meaning of the Clause.

Mr. BARNES

Does it permit the employer to transfer his legitimate liability to the shoulders of the employé?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I do not think it does permit the employer to transfer his legitimate liability to the employé. As I see the proposal now before the Committee, it does this: If the employer proceeded to make the defence that he was not criminally responsible for what appeared to be an offence against the Act, it would be open to him to make an allegation against some other person, in that person s absence. It might be the Magistrate: might think the statement made credible, and might dismiss the emnloyés from the charge made against him, and then, if the second Amendment in the name of the hon. Member were accepted, the inspector might commence proceedings against the employé. It might be that when the employé came into the witness box, he might say the employer's charge against him was all moonshine" So far from trying to prevent me from committing these acts, he encouraged me by secret instructions to commit these illegalities." The position then would be that the employer having been dismissed from the charge, and the employé also having been acquitted, justice would not he satisfied. Under this Clause there would be an opportunity for the employé to give evidence in the presence of the employer. The magistrate then would be able to resolve as to who was the guilty party. The burden would always be upon the employer, in the words of the Clause, "that he had used due diligence to enforce the execution of this Act," and so far from the employer being able to transfer any liability to the employé, I should rather say the onus is placed upon the employer throughout, whether he has the employé there or not, of proving himself innocent of the charge made against

him. I respectfully think the Clause deals not with the creation of any new offence on the part of the employé, but merely simplifies the machinery, and, on the whole, I think tends to the benefit of the employé, in order that he may be able to answer in the presence of the employer charges which might be very unpleasant if made in his absence.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left, out, to the word 'to' in line 32 stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 84.

Division No. 559.] AYES. [9.11 p.m.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Gates, Percy Malone, Major P. B.
Albery, Irving James Gault, Lieut.-Col, Andrew Hamilton Margesson, Capt. D.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Merriman, F. B.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Gower, Sir Robert Meyer, Sir Frank
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Grace, John Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Mitchell, w. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Greene, W. P. Crawford Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Balniel, Lord Grotrian, He Brent Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Moore, Sir Newton J.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Gunston, Captain D. W. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Berry, Sir George Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Murchison, C. K.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Neville R. J.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. w. Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Briggs, J. Harold Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Oakley, T.
Briscoe, Richard George Harland, A. O'Neill. Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Brittain, Sir Harry Harrison, G. J. C. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Hartington, Marquess of Owen, Major G.
Brown, Brlg.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Buckingham, Sir H. Haslam, Henry C. Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Bullock, Captain M. Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Perring, Sir William George
Burton, Colonel H, w. Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Herbert. Dennis (Hertlord, Watford) Power, Sir John Cecil
Cadogan. Major Hon. Edward Herbert,S.(York, N.R., Scar.& Wh'by) Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Campbell, E. T. Hills, Major John Waller Ramsden, E.
cassels, J. D. Hilton, Cecil Rawson, Sir Cooper
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Remer, J. R.
Chapman, Sir S. Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone) Rentoul, G. S.
Christie, J. A. Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Clarry, Reginald George Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Roberts. Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Cobb, Sir Cyril Holland, Sir Arthur Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Cope, Major William Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K. Rye, F. G.
Courtauld, Major J. S. Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland,Whiteh'n) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Hume, Sir G. H. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Crawfurd, H. E. Hurd, Percy A. Sandeman, A. Stewart
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Hurst, Gerald B. Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Sandon, Lord
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Savery, S. S.
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro) Jacob, A. E. Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Curzon, Captain Viscount James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel.(Renfrew.W.)
Davies, Dr. Vernon Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Dean, Arthur Wellesley Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Shepperson, E. W.
Drewe, C. Kidd. J. (Linlithgow) Sianey, Major P. Kenyon
Edmondson, Major A. J. Knox, Sir Alfred Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Smithers, Waldron
Ellis, R. G. Little, Dr. E. Graham Sprot, Sir Alexander
Elveden, Viscount Lloyd. Cyril E. (Dudley) Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Looker, Herbert William Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Everard, w. Lindsay Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Storry-Deans, R.
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Sueter. Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Falle, Sir Bertram G. MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Fenby, T. D. Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Fermoy, Lord MacIntyre, Ian Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Fielden, E. B. McLean, Major A. Tinne, J. A.
Finburgh, S. Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Forrest, W. McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Macquisten, F. A. Waddington, R.
Fraser, Captain Ian Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Makins, Brigadier-General E. Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and otley) Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd) Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Watts, Dr. T. Winby, Colonel L. P. Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)
Wells, S. R. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. Wise, Sir Fredric TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple- Womersley, W. J. Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) Lord Stanley.
NOES.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Potts, John S.
Ammon, Charles George Hardie, George D. Purcell, A. A.
Attlee, Clement Richard Hayday, Arthur Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Baker, Walter Hayes, John Henry Riley, Ben
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W.Bromwich)
Barnes, A. Hirst, G. H. Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Etland)
Batey, Joseph Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfleld) Saklatvala, Shapurjl
Bondfield, Margaret John, William (Rhondda, West) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Bromley, J. Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Scrymgeour, E.
Buchanan, G. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Scurr, John
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Sitch, Charles H.
Charteton, H. C. Kelly, W. T. smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotnerhithe)
Cluse, W. S. Kennedy, T. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Lansbury, George Sullivan, Joseph
Compton, Joseph Lawrence, Susan Sutton, J. E.
Connolly, M. Lee, F. Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Dalton, Hugh Lindley, F. W. Thurtle, Ernest
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Lowth, T. Tinker, John Joseph
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) MacDonald, Rt. Hon.J. R. (Aberavon) Townend, A. E.
Day, Colonel Harry Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Viant, S. P.
Dennison, R. March, S. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Montague, Frederick Whiteley, W.
Gardner, J. P. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)
Gillett, George M. Murnin, H. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Naylor, T. E. Wright, W.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Oliver, George Harold Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Groves, T. Paling, W.
Grundy, T. W. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.) Ponsonby, Arthur Mr. Taylor and Mr. Stephen.
Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I beg to move, in page 7, line 32, after the word "him" to insert the words and on giving not less than three days' notice of his intention to the prosecution. This Amendment, will bring the Clause into line with the model Clause inserted in the Merchandise Marks Act. It ensures that reasonable notice shall be given of the employer's intention.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I beg to move, in page 7, line 39, to leave out the words "knowledge, consent, or connivance," and to insert instead thereof the words "consent, connivance, or wilful default."

This Amendment ensures in the case of the employer that the defence of ignorance shall not by itself be sufficient, but that the employer must have discharged what is his plain duty, that is, have done all that is reasonably possible in a positive sense to ensure compliance with the Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 42, at the end, insert the words Provided that the prosecution shall have in any such case the right to cross-examine the employer or principal if he gives evidence, and any witnesses called by him in support of his charge and to call rebutting evidence."—[Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]

Mr. TAYLOR

I beg to move, in page 7, line 45, at the end, to insert the words Provided also that no conviction of an employé shall be lawful under this Section unless the employer or principal has exhibited on his premises a notice setting forth the statutory obligations under this Act applicable to his particular trade. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this very reasonable Amendment. It simply requires that the employer shall exhibit in a prominent place in his shop the obligations which both he and his assistants are under. This provision has been made in other Acts, so there is nothing unusual about it, and it will strengthen the administration of the law.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I think it would he unwise to accept this Amendment. We have already inserted, by implication, what is really important, and that is that the employer must bring home to his employés exactly what are their obligations, and he will be convicted unless he is able to show that he has taken all reasonable steps to get the Bill carried out. That is not done by exhibiting in his premises a long Act of Parliament of 15 pages, which nobody is going to read. That way would not satisfy me, if I wanted to be satisfied that an employer was taking all reasonable steps. To present this manual of law to an employé is no more teaching him how to comply with the Act than a recruit would be taught by having a manual of military training given to him, with the observation, "There, that is what you have got to do." The employer has to do something quite different. He has to make sure, in a simple and practical way, that his employé knows what he has to do, and if we were to insert this provision, which is an entirely novel one—there is no real parallel in any other Act—the employer would get off if he were able to show a long screed exhibited in the works, whereas he ought to be compelled to show that he had taken the

trouble to see that his employés knew what were the provisions affecting them.

Mr. WOMERSLEY

I have a good deal of sympathy with the Amendment, although I do not think it quite accomplishes what the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor) is trying to do, and I hope the President of the Board of Trade will give the matter consideration before the Report stage and see if something cannot be done in this respect. When I worked in a factory an abstract of the Factory Act had to be exhibited in the rooms when we worked, and I do not see why an abstract of this particular Bill setting forth the liability of the assistants should not be exhibited in each shop, either of a multiple firm or of a private trader, and I have advocated that something of the sort should be made compulsory on employers.

Question put, "That those there inserted."

The Committee divide: Ayes, 88; Noes, 195.

Division No. 560.] AYES. [9.27 p.m.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Grundy, T, W. Purcell, A. A.
Ammon, Charles George Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Attlee, Clement Richard Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Riley, Ben
Baker, Walter Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W. Bromwich)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertilltry) Hardie, George D. Robinson. W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Barnes, A. Hayday, Arthur Saklatvala, Shapurji
Batey, Joseph Henderson. T. (Glasgow) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Bondfield, Margaret Hirst, G. H. Scrymgeour, E.
Bromley, J. Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfleld) Sexton, James
Buchanan, G. Hutchison. Sir Robert (Montrose) Sitch, Charles H.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel John, William (Rhondda, West) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Charleton, H. C. Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Stephen, Campbell
Cluse, W. S. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Sullivan, Joseph
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R Kelly, W. T. Sutton, J. E.
Compton, Joseph Kennedy, T. Taylor, R. A.
Connolly, M. Lansbury, George Thurtle, Ernest
Crawford, M. E. Lawrence, Susan Tinker, John Joseph
Dalton, Hugh Lee, F. Townend, A. E.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Lindley, F. W. Viant, S. P.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lowth, T. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Day, Colonel Harry Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Whiteley, W.
Dennison, R. March, S. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Montague, Frederick Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Fenby, T. D. Morrison. R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Womersley, W. J.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Murnin, H. Wright, W.
Gardner, J. P. Naylor, T. E. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Gillett, George M. Oliver, George Harold
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Owen, Major G. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Paling, W. Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Ponsonby, Arthur Hayes.
Groves, T. Potts, John S.
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Barnett, Major Sir Richard Buckingham, Sir H.
Albery, Irving James Berry, Sir George Bullock, Captain M.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Birchall, Major J. Dearman Burton, Colonel H. W.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Briggs, J. Harold Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Briscoe, Richard George Campbell, E. T.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Brittain, Sir Harry Cassels, J. D.
Balniel, Lord Brocklebank, C. E. R. Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) Chapman, Sir S.
Christie, J. A. Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Rees, Sir Beddoe
Cobb, Sir Cyril Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Cohen, Major J. Brunel Holland, Sir Arthur Remer, J. R.
Cope, Major William Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar) Rentoul, G. S.
Courtauld, Major J. S. Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) Richardson, Sir P. w. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K. Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whitoh'n) Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Hume, Sir G. H. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemovth)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Hurd, Percy A. Rye, F. G.
Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) Hurst, Gerald B. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Curzon, Captain Viscount Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Davies, Dr. Vernon Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Sandeman, A. Stewart
Dean, Arthur Wellesley Jacob, A. E. Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Drewe, C. James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Sandon, Lord
Edmondson, Major A. J. Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Savery, S. S.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Ellis, R. G. Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Met. (Renfrew, W)
Elveden, Viscount Knox, Sir Alfred Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.) Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Shepperson, E. W.
Everard, W. Lindsay Little, Dr. E. Graham Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Looker, Herbert William Smithers, Waldron
Fermoy, Lord Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Fielden, E. B. Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Sprot, Sir Alexander
Finburgh, S. MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Forrest, W. Macdonald, Copt. P. D. (I. of W.) Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'lind)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T. MacIntyre, Ian Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Fraser, Captain Ian McLean, Major A. Storry-Deans, R.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Gates, Percy McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Macquisten, F. A. Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.
Gower, Sir Robert Maklns, Brigadier-General E. Tinne, J. A.
Grace, John Malone, Major P. B. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Margesson, Captain D. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Greene, W. P. Crawford Merriman, F. B. Waddington, R.
Grotrian, H. Brent Meyer, Sir Frank Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W. Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Watts, Dr. T.
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne) Moore, Sir Newton J. Wells, S. R.
Hammersley, S. S. Moore-Brabazon. Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Murchison, C. K. White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-
Harland, A. Neville, R. J. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Harrison. G. J. C. Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Hartington, Marquess of Oakley, T. Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh Winby, Colonel L. P.
Haslam, Henry C. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Windsor.Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L (Bootle) Percy. Lord Eustace (Hastings) Wise, Sir Fredric
Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Perkins, Colonel E. K. Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Perring, Sir William George Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Herbert, S.(York, N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by) Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Hills, Major John Waller Power, Sir John Cecil Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)
Hilton, Cecil Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Ramsden, E. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D.(St.Marylebone) Rawson, Sir Cooper Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain
Bowyer.

Question put, and agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN

The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. G. Harvey)—in page 7, line 45, at end, to insert (6) Where an inspector is satisfied, having regard to the circumstances of the sate, that the alleged offence has been committed by an employé without the knowledge, connivance, or consent of the employer he may, in his discretion, institute proceedings against such employé instead of against the employer"— appears to be unnecessary. I imagine that the inspector can proceed either against the, employé or the employer at his discretion as it is.

Mr. HURST

I beg to move, in page 8. line 6, to leave out the word "seven," and to insert instead thereof the word "two."

This Amendment raises a very simple issue. What is a reasonable notice to give to a retail tradesman of your intention to prosecute him for short weight? As the Bill now stands an intending prosecutor, whether he be an inspector or private person, can wait a week before he gives notice to the dealer that he intends to prosecute. My Amendment is based on the view that 48 hours is quite long enough for the inspector or the buyer to make up their minds whether or not they intend to prosecute for short weight. In such a case it is obviously their duty to give notice within 48 hours to the seller. It is quite impossible, in the case of the ordinary shopkeeper, to remember any and every interview which took place between him or his assistant and of the buyer as long ago as a week. I have had considerable experience of cases where a tradesman has absolutely no recollection of what took place, or what he sold one or two days before. To expect a retail dealer or his assistants to remember every transaction over a period of a week is unfair; 48 hours is quite enough time to allow an impending prosecutor to make up his mind whether he is going to bring a prosecution or not. I think the person who is going to be prosecuted should have the charge brought to his notice within a time in which he may reasonably expect to remember the transaction. For this purpose I think two days is quite enough.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

There are several objections to this Amendment. In the first place, two day is, inn the opinion of the local authorities, not enough time for the inspector to decide who is the proper person to be sued. Often they wish to find out who is the proper person to bring the action against. If the inspector only has two days he will very likely serve notice on the wrong person, and then he has to bring the other person into Court, and this causes the prosecution of wrong persons. In some cases it is the practice of the local authority not to allow the inspector to launch a prosecution without the approval of the local authority, and a period of two days would not allow this to be done. The real safeguard is that the trader should have a reasonable opportunity of checking the weight which the inspector says is wrong. I am prepared to accept an Amendment later on which will ensure that the parties concerned shall have an opportunity of checking the weight or the measure.

Mr. HURST

May I point out that the Amendment referred to by the right hon. Gentleman is confined to prosecutions by buyer. Does the right hon. Gentlemen wish to amend the Amendment so that it will cover the other case?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

It is my intention to advise the hon. and learned Member to move his Amendment in a form which will cover any prosecution by anybody. It will also give the person charged an opportunity of checking the weight. We shall have to consider later on whether in those cases the prosecution should only be launched either by the local authority, the police, or the Public Prosecutor. I am advised that the Amendment I have referred to should be moved in perfectly general terms in order to cover all cases.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I beg to move, in page 8, line 8, to leave out the words "sent to," and to insert instead thereof the words "served on or sent by registered post to."

This Amendment is intended to make sure that the notice is served in a formal way.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. A. R. KENNEDY

I beg to move, in page 8, line 9, at the end, to add the words nor unless in the case of any alleged deficiency the person against whom the allegation is made has been given a reasonable opportunity to check the weight, measure, or number of the article or articles in respect of which such allegation is made. That is to say, all persons charged under this Amendment will have a reasonable opportunity of checking the weight which is the subject matter of the charge. It is so eminently reasonable that the seller should have that opportunity that I do not propose to say anything further in support of my Amendment.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I think the insertion of these words is quite right, and I accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. WOMERSLEY

I beg to move, in page 8, line 9, at the end to add the words (7) In England a prosecution under this Act shall not be instituted except by or on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, a police authority, or a local authority.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I suggest that this is a reasonable proposal. It is quite obvious that the general administration is to be in the hands of the local authority, and we know from the evidence of the local authority that they actually wish to administer the Act. We are all agreed that it is important that the inspectors should be trained in their jobs, and it is also provided that in making their tests they should use precise instruments which have been approved by the Standards Department of the Board of Trade. If we think it right to ensure that people shall not be wrongly accused, while ensuring, on the other hand, that no one who ought to be convicted gets off, it does seem right that the bringing of people into Court on these charges should rest with the local authority or the police. I cannot conceive that anyone who wishes to lodge a prosecution would do otherwise than complain to the police or complain to the inspector. We have just provided that, if a trader is charged, he shall have the opportunity of checking the weight, and I think that on the whole this Amendment is reasonable and right. I am, however, advised—I am not an expert in Scots law—that the words "In England" ought to be left out.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson)

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "In England."

Perhaps I may be allowed to explain this matter. Curiously enough, in regard to weights and measures, contrary to our practice in Scotland, there is in the Act of 1878 a provision relating to the common informer. Such a provision is very unusual in Scotland. I suggest that, while my right hon. Friend is accepting this Amendment, he should make this provision apply to Scotland as well, and then, later on, I will move to add, in regard to the application of the Measure to Scotland, words to provide that in Scotland the Lord Advocate shall be substituted for the Director of Public Prosecutions. To put the matter in order, I now beg to move to omit the words "In England."

Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.