HC Deb 05 May 1936 vol 311 cc1655-61

Order for Second Reading read.

10.30 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The object of the Bill is to regulate dealings in sand and ballast with a view to the prevention of fraud. It is a necessary complement to the existing law of weights and measures. It has been asked for from a wide circle of interests, and will be generally welcomed by all parts of the House of Commons. I do not think that the House will require at this stage any detailed explanation of the Bill, but if the House gives it a Second Reading it will be referred to a Standing Committee, where its proposals will be thoroughly examined. The Bill is a short one of 13 Clauses. A number of them deal with administrative points, but the short substance of the Measure is to legalise dealings in sand and ballast which are made by the cubic yard or weight. Frauds have taken place during the conveyance of sand and ballast from place to place, and it is necessary to institute more control over the vehicles in which sand and ballast are carried. Certain criticisms which were made when the Bill was introduced in the last Parliament have been substantially met. It has been discussed by a number of trade organisations who will be principally concerned, and has met with general approval.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. HOPKIN

May I ask a question with regard to Subsection (2) of Clause 3, in which it is said: If any person conveys any sand or ballast in contravention of this Section, or causes any sand or ballast to be conveyed in contravention of this Section, he shall be guilty of an offence. Will the Parliamentary Secretary think out a scheme to give some protection to the driver of the vehicle so that he shall not be liable for something over which he has no control? Will he consider in Clause 4 an Amendment also to protect the driver of a conveyance by putting in the words: Provided that nothing in this Section shall make the driver of a conveyance guilty of an offence unless he wilfully signs or uses such conveyance knowing that it contains a materially incorrect statement. I think it would be wrong to convict a driver of a conveyance in circumstances over which he has no control.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. PRITT

It is probable that the objections I want to put forward have already been considered by the Government. My first objection which will appeal to many hon. Members is that the Bill creates additional criminal offences, which should be avoided wherever possible. My other objection is more serious. The Bill expressly provides for a criminal offence in connection with the sale and conveyance of things like sand and ballast except by the cubic yard. The point which does not seem to have been considered by the framers of the Bill is the following: It is extremely well known in the industry that if a vehicle holding, say, three cubic yards is filled absolutely to the top with gravel or even sand, and is then driven for 10 miles, it is not more than two-thirds full at the end of the journey. This is due to the fact that the gravel or sand shakes down, and it does so in a percentage which cannot be reliably calculated, as it depends partly on the degree of vigour of the shaking and on the distance the stuff is carried, but much more on the shape, size and regularity of the granules or pebbles, or whatever it may be, which form the cubic yard of gravel, which is, of course, a cubic yard consisting partly of gravel and partly of air. That is a matter which must be dealt with properly in order to ensure that nobody is done an injustice and that people are not sent to prison for short weight when all that has happened is that the natural causes of gravity, plus vibration, have shaken down the stuff, which consisted of 10 per cent. of air, into three-quarters of a cubic yard, which consists of very little air. I would like to hear from the Minister whether that problem has been considered.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. HICKS

Generally speaking I welcome the Bill as an effort to redress a grievance which has existed in the trade for a very long time. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) asked the Board of Trade to consider the possibilities of guaranteeing that drivers of lorries will not necessarily be punished if the blame does not attach to them. I think some consideration ought to be given to that point in order that these men may be dealt with fairly and properly. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) was concerned with gravity or gravel, but I know that a good deal of the decrease in the measure is due to the fact that the sand or gravel is placed in a, container in a moist condition so that when the water runs away from it a very diminished measure becomes available to the client. It is a practice which has existed for a very long time and the clients and the trade generally have been the victims of sharp practices in that direction.

The British Standards Institution, with which my own Federation has been actively associated, has examined this Bill very closely and has generally given it its blessing. There are certain exceptions, of course, and I hope there will be an opportunity for further consideration of those points in Committee. Generally speaking, so far as the trade and the building operatives are concerned, we welcome the Bill as an effort to remedy a wrong. The fact that the cubic yard has for many years been regarded in the industry as a measure, which to-day is not legal, is something which has been discovered as a result of examination. This Bill is an effort to right a wrong, and I feel certain that if the general intent and purposes of the Bill, together with necessary and proper safeguards, can be adequately established, the industry generally will welcome the Bill.

10.39 p.m.

Sir ROBERT TASKER

I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add, "upon this day six months."

I do that for the purpose of obtaining certain information which, I think, the House is entitled to have from the Minister. Nearly the whole of the Clauses of the Bill are supported not only by the trade interested but by national bodies which are well acquainted with all the questions relating to this particular trade. I have a list here which I will not trouble to read to the House, but it includes the Minister of Transport, the whole of the railway companies of Great Britain, the national building trade employers, and others, all of them unanimous. Therefore one can understand this combination of people whose interests are distinct, because they desire to bring to an end the malpractices which at present obtain. My efforts to call attention by question to certain details in connection with this Measure were brought to an untimely end by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Burgin), but I apprehend that while back-benchers sometimes have imposed upon them a sort of paralysing inertia, which renders them mute, we are not to be treated like that on all occasions and there are certain difficulties which I think the Minister has not realised.

Whether it is sand or ballast which is in question, there are certain factors which have to be taken into account. The material may be wet or dry, the vehicle in which it is carried may be traversing a short distance or a long distance over good roads or over bad roads. The vehicle may have pneumatic tyres or solid tyres and even that factor will affect the volume. I would like to assure the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) that his informant who told him that the volume would be decreased by one-third was guilty of gross exaggeration. We are in possession of statistics which show that after traversing some 20 miles of road the weight of sand is only reduced in volume by 5.5 per cent., and in no case is any material mentioned in the Bill reduced by more than 8.4 per cent.

I think the Bill should contain a Clause which would allow for a certain percentage, in order that the driver of the vehicle may not be penalised for something over which he can exercise no control. I think this could be dealt with by the same method as that of a baker who, in weighing up the dough for a 2 lb loaf, makes it 2 lbs. 2 ozs. So many bushels could be allowed on a given quantum to make up for the deficiency which must accrue when the interstices between different elements in the material are filled up, due to jolting or vibration or the leakage of water. In Clause 2 reference is made to conforming with such regulations as may be made by the Board of Trade. I confess I am not enamoured of legislation by regulation. Although I know that it is dear to the heart of bureaucracy I feel there is a tendency in these days to increase the number of officials rather needlessly. A Clause which calls for some criticism is Clause 12, dealing with interpretation. I suggest that the words in paragraph (b) or hard core of brick, stone, stoneware or concrete should be deleted, and a new paragraph introduced, because those who are acquainted with building material make a great distinction between hard core and other materials which are designated as ballast. Ballast means stone chippings granite chippings, sand, shingle and so on, and they come in an entirely different category. At the present moment I have a building operation where I am glad to give away the hard core, and it is unfair to penalise a man because, when he is given a certain volume, it does not happen to conform to the standard set out in the Bill.

Hard core is an extraordinarily wide term. This Clause presupposes that hard core is to be used as an aggregate for concrete. In my experience that would be a most unusual thing; in fact, I would prohibit it. I do not know anyone who would allow hard core to be used as an aggregate for concrete. Hard core may be due to the demolition of buildings and may consist of soft bricks or huge masses of stone work, and it is useless for making concrete. It would be well if in Committee some consideration were given to the definition of hard core. If the Minister is prepared to give me that assurance I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. I would venture to suggest that if at any future time information is required on trade matters such as are dealt with in this Measure, the courtesy should be extended to hon. Members of a consultation in order to ascertain proper information. Backbenchers are not like the great Mogul throned in majesty, wrapped in silence.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. EDE

I beg to second the Amendment.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that there had been consultations with the trade. The success of this Measure depends on its being carried out by the local authorities. I know that there is some misgiving among some of them with regard to the power given to them under the Bill. I hope that in the conversations that will have to take place between now and the Committee stage of the Bill they will be consulted also. There is general agreement that this subject is long overdue for legislation. Local authorities have been among the chief sufferers in this matter in regard to the consignment of these materials sent for use on highways; and they have therefore a direct as well as an administrative interest in securing that the law is efficient. I am told that this is one of the matters in which the ingenuity of man can be very skilfully directed towards the most wicked ends, and that it is very desirable that those who have to administer this legislation should be consulted in regard to it in order to make sure that the objects of the Legislature can be carried into effect by the administrators.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS

I should like very briefly to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade not merely on having moved the Second Reading of the Bill to-night, but on having been engaged with great success in difficult negotiations during the last two or three years in respect of this Bill. Apart from those Bills which pro yoke mass correspondence I have received more correspondence from my constituents on this Bill than on any other subject, and I have burdened the Parliamentary Secretary with many letters myself. The object of this Bill is to prevent fraud. I recognise to the full the point which has been made by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), but I think that his fears were largely answered by my hon. Friend who moved the rejection of the Bill. I would remind hon. Members that this Bill is having its second Parliamentary experience. It was introduced in the last Parliament, when it had bottles added on to hard core. The bottles represented such difficulties that they were dropped. Amendments were made in another place which solved the bulk of the problems which the Bill presented in its original form. It has been carefully investigated by representatives of the trades concerned, and advice has been given by the British Standards Institution and by that admirable body the Standards Department of the Board of Trade. I was not much impressed by my hon. Friend's arguments about hard core, because I can imagine a lot of uses for hard core other than concrete. It can be used for concrete.

Sir R. TASKER

The Deputy-Director of the British Standards Institution says: With regard to the inclusion of hard core in the Bill… I find the reason for its inclusion is primarily that it is used extensively as an aggregate for concrete, and for such purposes is sold by the cubic yard, and it is very desirable that it should be dealt with in the same way as sand and ballast, as the sale of it is liable to the same malpractices.

Mr. WILLIAMS

My hon. Friend suggested that it was totally unsuitable for that purpose. If it is the subject of fraud, whatever its use may be, its sale ought to be regulated in the way prescribed in this Bill. I hope that the Bill will have a swift passage, although there are problems that will have to be examined in Committee.