Schedule 6.—(SOLID FUEL.) (Hansard, 13 March 1963)

§ Mr. Denzil Freeth
I beg to move, in page 83, line 34 after "hundredweight" to insert: one and a quarter hundredweight". Would it be convenient, Mr. Speaker, to discuss with this Amendment the Amendment in page 83, line 44, leave out "any".

§ Mr. Speaker
Yes, if it is convenient to the House.

§ Mr. Freeth
The purpose of the two Amendments is to permit coal to be carried for retail delivery in 1¼cwt. sacks —that is, in 10 stone sacks—as well as in 1483 the normal 1 cwt. sacks. During our discussions on Schedule 6 in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) suggested that provision should be made in the Bill to allow solid fuel to be carried in 10 stone sacks as well as in the normal 1 cwt, sacks. My hon. Friend pointed out that this was already the practice in some parts of the country and that to allow this unit would permit greater speed and economy in fuel deliveries. At that time I undertook to consider the matter but gave no specific undertaking.
After due consideration, my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend and myself are prepared to accept this suggestion. It seems to us that the use of 1¼ cwt. sacks would permit greater efficiency and greater economy in the delivery of fuel, and I am sure the House will agree that nothing that we do in the Bill should prevent either greater efficiency or greater economy of manpower or effort. As my hon. Friend pointed out in Committee, there would be risk of abuse if lorries were allowed to carry mixed loads partly of 1¼ cwt. sacks and partly of 1¼ cwt. sacks. The Amendments will therefore ensure that the 1¼ cwt. size sack may be used only where all the sacks or containers made up on the vehicle are in that quantity. I said in Committee that the Government would consider introducing Amendments if no representations of a convincing nature were made to my right hon. Friend the President against the suggestion of my hon. Friend. I can tell the House that no such representations against the use of 10 stone sacks have been made and, therefore, I hope that the House will agree to accept the Amendments.

§ Mr. Darling
The Amendments seem a sensible way out of the difficulties raised in Committee. When the proposition was first put forward I was rather reluctant to accept it until I, too, re- 1484 ceived representations in favour of legalising the 10 stone sack and was assured that in some parts of the country this practice of selling coal in 10 stone bags has been of long standing and is extremely useful. Apparently customers want it as much as coal merchants. One appreciates that by taking coal in 10 stone as against 8 stone bags one is moving more coal and is, thereby, achieving greater efficiency. The Amendments will also prevent any jiggery pokery resulting from having different sized bags of coal on the same cart and the proposition should, therefore, be accepted.

§ Mr. Winterbottom
I do not share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) because the Clause as drafted lends itself to abuse. If I had my way there would be only two weights included in the Clause, one so far removed from the other that it would be impossible for one to appear like the other, for similarity in this respect may lead to abuse.
I would have a 1 cwt. bag and a 28 lb. bag. Any other conception of weights merely lends itself to abuse. Although we have been told that it has been customary to sell coal in 1 cwt. and 1¼ cwt. bags, I believe that the districts in which that is done are very few in number. Since there will be no chance of inspecting the coal once it has been bagged and placed on lorries, abuse may occur because of the similarity of the two weights. A lorry might contain bags varying in weight—

§ Mr. Darling
No.

§ Mr. Winterbottom
—and it would be quite easy for abuse to occur. Coal in bags can never be weighed precisely —and I am speaking from experience—and it usually weighs about 115 1bs. per bag. It would be easy for a I cwt. bag to pass for a 1¼ cwt. bag on a lorry and, as I have said, there would be no inspection. The only way to avoid abuse is to have the two totally different weights I have suggested. If the Government insist on having a I cwt. bag, let them have it but let them also ensure that the second weight is totally different.
During the recent cold spell coal deliverers have found it difficult to get to people's homes and as a result of the difficulties which the merchants and their 1485 customers have experienced, all sorts of weights have been sold, irrespective of the law. Coal has been sold in 20 1b., 40 1b. and ¼ cwt. quantities. I have handled some of the bags of coal that have been sold recently and in a number of cases I have questioned whether or not the weight declared has in fact been the weight finally sold.
Especially in the street which I mentioned earlier tonight, only 200 to 300 yards away from the coal depot where the principle of "put and take", as the coalmen call it, operates, this system of having about five different declared weights will give the coalmen great opportunities of doing things which up to now they have been prevented from doing,. Where it is the custom to sell coal in 11 cwt. quantities it is rare to find coal sold in 1 cwt. quantities, and where it is sold in 1 cwt. quantities it is rare to find coalmen delivering in 1¼ cwt. quantities.

§ Mr. Darling
Amendment provides that in the district where 1 cwt. is normally sold 1 cwt. must still be sold. In those districts where 1¼ cwt. quantities only are now sold all the bags of coal must weigh 1¼ cwt. and they cannot be changed.

§ Mr. Winterbottom
In those districts where 1 cwt. is sold it will be possible to sell 1¼ cwt.

§ Mr. Darling
No.

§ Mr. Winterbottom
Am I wrong?

§ Mr. Denzil Freeth
If the House gives us the Amendment and Parliament passes the Bill it will be possible in any district to deliver fuel made up in containers of any one of the weights mentioned in paragraph 3 (1, a) of Schedule 6 and it will be open within that area for some merchants to use one weight and some to use another, and indeed for other merchants to use a number of these different weights. But the point which we insist upon is that no lorry may be loaded with 1 cwt. sacks and 1¼ cwt. sacks.

§ Mr. Winterbottom
Let us get this quite clear. If the coalman is accustomed to deal with 1 cwt., if he wishes he can change to 1¼ cwt., provided that all the bags on the lorry are of 1¼ cwt.

§ Mr. Darling
That is right.

§ Mr. Winterbottom
This lends itself to abuse. If a man declares that he is selling 1 cwt. bags of coal and he has a 1¼ cwt. bag on the lorry and he delivers the 1¼ cwt. bag first he could then deliver the remaining nine bags of 1 cwt., and the customer would not be aware that he was not receiving nine 1¼ cwt. bags. This is done where bags of weights which are difficult to distinguish from one another are used.

§ Mr. Freeth
There are two points here. The first is that not only must the coal be made up in one of the specific quantities named in paragraph 3 (1, a) of the Schedule, but in addition the container must be marked with the net weight. Secondly, according to my information, the practice of coal merchants selling and delivering coal in 1 cwt. sacks and 1¼ cwt. sacks, but never having sacks of the two different weights on the same lorry has proved eminently satisfactory in Lincoln and there has been no complaint.