HL Deb 09 July 1935 vol 98 cc65-95

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Certain dealings with sand or ballast to, be by weight or by the cubic yard.

1.—(1) No person shall (whether on his own behalf or on behalf of another person) sell, agree to sell or agree to carry any sand or ballast otherwise than by weight or by the cubic yard:

Provided that this subsection shall not apply in relation to any sale, agreement for the sale, or agreement for the carriage, of a quantity of sand or ballast the weight of which is less than one ton and the volume of which is less than one cubic yard; and any such sale or agreement is hereafter in this Part of this Act referred to as "an exempted sale or agreement."

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, at the beginning of the clause, to insert "Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act." The noble Marquess said: I venture to think that this Amendment is quite necessary on account of the wording of the title, where the word "conveyance" covers everything that is done in this Bill. It appears that no one can convey his own belongings without all sorts of conditions and restrictions, notwithstanding the fact that the things are his, that he has no agreement for sale or conveyance or anything at all, but is merely carting them about his own purposes, to maintain his own property. I think it will be conceded that there are a great many restrictions and conditions already in regard to the use of highways by vehicles, both commercial and private, and that it is undesirable to increase their number.

It is perfectly true that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill—and I have considerable sympathy with him, because he is not a Minister of the Department concerned, but merely represents it in your Lordships' House and therefore he is not exactly responsible for the exact terms of this Bill—has put down two Amendments to Clause 4 with the object of helping people who convey their own sand and ballast otherwise than on a highway. But there are still quite a number of landowners through whose property highways pass. It will therefore follow that they would not be able to convey their sand or ballast either across or along a highway, even if the Amendments of the noble Lord were agreed to. The whole object of my Amendment is to pave the way for the new clause of which I have given notice after Clause 6, and which lays it down, shortly, that owners of sand or ballast who are conveying their sand or ballast for their own purposes, and not by way of trade or sale or agreement, shall not be subject to all the restrictions and pettifogging conditions laid down by this Bill. In these times, when one wants to encourage people to do things for themselves, I do not see why, after paying for their licences and so on, people should not be allowed to carry their own goods on their own land or across a highway which passes through their own land, without being subject to the surveillance or inspection of the local authority inspector, Customs and Excise officers, and the like.

My proposed clause would also cover the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, who wishes to exempt drainage boards from the provisions of the Bill. A drainage board must carry about sand or ballast for their business, but when they do carry it about it is their own property. Therefore I say that if my proposed clause is inserted after Clause 6 it would cover the Amendment of Lord Eltisley. I think it ought to cover all sorts of sand and ballast conveyance. Under the Bill, if a county council or a highway authority happens to go through another county, perhaps, or another authority's area, apparently it could not convey its sand or ballast for making roads without being subject to the inspection and surveillance of the neighbouring authority. This Bill may be de- sirable in some respects, but I think it has been drawn up without very much knowledge of the actual use of sand or ballast; and, indeed, that is evident by the enormous number of Amendments which have been put on the Paper by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. In the hope that it may be able to help owners, whether public or private, in the carrying on of what they have been allowed to do in the past without let or hindrance, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 8, at the beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act ").—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)

LORD TEMPLEMORE

At the outset I must express my gratitude to my noble friend the noble Marquess for his words of sympathy with me in the conduct of this Bill. Although I may be at a disadvantage in not being Parliamentary Secretary to this Department, and am only answering for it, as it were, in your Lordships' House, I assure your Lordships that I do not stand in any way in a white sheet and apologise for the badness of this Bill. May I say, with all due respect to my noble friend, though I make no complaint whatever, I think his speech was more suitable to some of the Amendments on which he is going to speak later than it was to this particular Amendment. Also he gave what I may call, without disrespect, a kind of dissertation on the evils of this Bill which was hardly suitable, perhaps, to the Committee stage. As regards this particular Amendment, I am afraid I cannot accept it, because the words which are proposed do not affect the sense of the Bill in any way, and are unnecessary. The noble Marquess will, I am sure, agree with me that there are obvious objections to including redundant words in an Act of Parliament. In that case I hope very much that my noble friend will not press his Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the proviso and insert: Provided that this subsection shall not apply—

  1. (a) in relation to any sale, agreement for the sale, or agreement for the carriage, 68 of a quantity of sand or ballast, the weight of which is less than one ton and the volume of which is less than one cubic yard (any such sale or agreement being hereafter in this Part of this Act referred to as an 'exempted sale or agreement');
  2. (b) in relation to any sale, or agreement for the sale, of any sand or ballast, being a sale or agreement of which it is a term that the purchaser is to take delivery of the sand or ballast in or from a vessel as defined by Section seven hundred and forty-two of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894; or
  3. (c) in relation to any agreement for the carriage of any sand or ballast, it and in so far as the agreement provides for the carriage of the sand or ballast by water, and is made for the purpose of giving or taking delivery of that sand or ballast in pursuance of such a sale or agreement as is referred to in paragraph (b) of this proviso."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment retains the exception already provided in the Bill for the sale or carriage of small quantities, and adds a further exception which is intended to meet a point raised by Lord Clwyd in the debate on Second Reading. Dock and harbour authorities sometimes buy or sell sand or ballast by the boat-load. In such a case the quantity of the material is not computed by weight or by the cubic yard but by reference to the tonnage of the vessel in which it is loaded or by some other means. It has been represented on behalf of these authorities that it would cause great and unnecessary hardship to be compelled to weigh these large quantities of material or to measure them by the cubic yard. It is possible to exempt water-borne material from the operation of the Bill without interfering with the main purpose of the Bill, which is to regulate dealings on land. The conveyance of sand and ballast by water has not been subject to malpractices such as have occurred on land. Accordingly this Amendment provides that Clause 1 shall not apply to a sale or agreement for sale where the purchaser is to take delivery in or from a vessel, nor to an agreement for carriage by water for the purpose of giving or taking delivery in such a case.

Amendment moved— Page 1, leave out lines 12 to 18 and insert the said new proviso.—(Lord Templemore.)

LORD CLWYD

I thank the noble Lord in charge of the Bill for the consideration which he has given to the point I raised, and wish to say that the Amendment fully meets the difficulties I had in view.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ELTISLEY moved to insert at the end of subsection (1): Provided that this subsection shall not apply to the carrying of any sand or ballast by a drainage board or by any person on behalf of a drainage board in respect of sand or ballast which is removed or carried for the purposes of disposal only and not for sale.

The noble Lord said: Since I tabled this Amendment an Amendment has been put down by the Minister in charge of the Bill which goes some way, and perhaps the whole way, that I desire to go. My Amendment has beets tabled on behalf of the Catchment Boards Association, who are apprehensive to some extent as to whether they will get full exemption in cases where sand or ballast is being carried, not by themselves necessarily, but by someone whom they employ and by, perhaps, someone whom they actually pay to move that sand or ballast. I think the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, goes a long way to meet that case, and if he could give me an assurance on the point I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 18, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Eltisley.)

LORD TEMPLEMORE

As my noble friend has justly surmised, I am in a most reasonable mood this afternoon. The Government accept the principle of this Amendment, which is to exclude from the Bill contracts for the removal of refuse, and a Government Amendment to add a new subsection (4) has been put down to deal with it. The only difference in substance between the two Amendments is that, whereas Lord Eltisley's deals only with cases of removal on behalf of drainage boards, the Government Amendment deals with all cases. As regards the question my noble friend has asked, whether catchment boards would have full exemption in the case of other people disposing of their sand or gravel whom they have to pay to remove it, I understand they would have exemption in that case. In these circumstances I hope my noble friend will not press his Amendment.

LORD ELTISLEY

In view of that assurance I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

LORD PHILLIMORE

May I ask one question: Does the noble Lord's new Amendment cover the case where a catchment board is moving sand or ballast on to somebody else's property, the consideration being really only that the board was glad to get the leave of the person concerned to have the ballast dumped on his property?

LORD TEMPLEMORE

I am glad to answer my noble friend. I understand that my Amendment is so thorough that it covers that and every other case that could arise.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, after subsection (3), to insert: (4) An agreement which, in a case where the owner of any sand or ballast undertakes to transfer the property therein to another person in consideration only of an undertaking by that person to remove the sand or ballast from the place at which the property therein passes to him, is made for the purpose of removing the sand or ballast as aforesaid, shall be deemed for the purposes of till; Part of this Act not to be an agreement for the carriage of that sand or ballast.

The noble Lord said: I now move the Amendment which is to meet the case of my noble friend. I should like to explain it in a few words. It is intended to meet a point which has been raised on behalf of certain dock authorities and catchment boards. It may happen that material such as sand or ashes, which falls within the definition of sand or ballast contained in this Bill, is forming an obstruction on land and someone has to be paid to take it away. It is clearly unnecessary that in such a case the material should be weighed or measured before it is carted away. This Amendment accordingly provides that where the only consideration which the contractor gives, in return for his obtaining possession of the material, is an undertaking to remove it, the contract shall not be deemed to be art agreement for the carriage of the material for the purposes of this Part of the Act. This has the effect of placing such transactions outside the scope of the Bill except in so far as the contractor, if he takes the material along a public highway, will have to provide the carter with a. conveyance note stating that the material is not being conveyed in pursuance of a sale or of an agreement to sell or to carry.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 14, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Receptacles for measuring sand or ballast by the cubic yard]:

LORD TEMPLEMORE

The object of my Amendment to this clause is merely to make good an omission from the original text of the Bill. It is really drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 36, after ("re-verified") insert ("and re-stamped").—(Lord Temple-more.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

Restrictions on use of vehicles for conveying sand or ballast.

(2) 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; and if any person, with intent to defraud or deceive

  1. (a) forges any tare weight mark approved for the purposes of this section by the Board of Trade, or
  2. (b) alters or defaces any such tare weight mark placed on a vehicle, or
he shall be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine.

In this subsection the expression "forges" has the same meaning as in the Forgery Act, 1913.

LORD TEMPLEMORE

The Amendments in my name on this clause are drafting. I beg to move them.

Amendments moved— Page 4, line 11, leave out ("in any") and insert ("by means of a"). Page 4, line 12, leave out ("is accurately") and insert ("ascertained in such manner as may be prescribed, is"). Page 4, line 18, leave out ("in any receptacle forming part") and insert ("by means"). Page 4, line 19, after ("receptacle") insert ("in which the sand or ballast it so conveyed").—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved, in subsection (1), to leave eat "with intent to defraud or deceive." The noble Earl said: I do not think this is much more than a drafting Amendment. It is to delete the words "with intent to defraud or deceive." I submit that it is really impossible in a weights and measures case to prove intent to deceive, and therefore I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 35, leave out ("with intent to defraud or deceive").—(Earl Courtown.)

LORD TEMPLEMORE

My noble friend says his Amendment is little more than drafting. I am afraid it is a great deal more than that; in fact I am told that if I accepted it I should infringe the Common Law of England. I am afraid, therefore, I cannot accept the Amendment for the reasons I will give. The clause as it stands imposes a fairly heavy penalty on a person who forges, alters or counterfeits a tare weight mark with intent to defraud or deceive. It should be explained that the words "defraud" and "deceive" have different applications: if the forgery or the counterfeit is made in order to mislead a purchaser it may be a case of defrauding, but if it is done in order to mislead an inspector, it can only be a case of deceiving. If these words were omitted a person who quite innocently placed on a vehicle a mark resembling the tare weight mark would be liable to a heavy penalty, even though the vehicle might never be used for carrying sand or ballast. Even if someone else painted the mark on the vehicle without the owner's knowledge, the owner would be liable to a penalty unless he removed the mark immediately. The Amendment would also have the effect that the alteration of a tare weight mark on a vehicle could be punished if it were done to defraud a purchaser, but not if it were done to deceive an inspector.

The clause as drafted follows the wording of the Forgery Act, 1913, and of other Acts which provide for offences of this kind, such as the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and the Improvement of Live Stock (Licensing of Bulls) Act, 1931. Forgery, that is, the imitation of a document or mark, is not a punishable offence under these Acts unless it is done with intent to defraud or deceive. It is an essential element of the offences created by these Acts that there should be an intent to defraud or deceive, and I am informed it would be so serious a departure from the principles of the criminal law relating to this class of offence to omit these elements that it cannot be imagined that this is really the intention of the noble Earl. I hope my noble friend will not press the Amendment.

THE EARL OF COURTOWN

I am afraid I cannot follow all the legalities which my noble friend has mentioned, if I may so call them, because I am not a lawyer. If this Amendment is entirely against the Common Law of England I would certainly not press it, but I am not sure that I am perfectly satisfied with the noble Lord's statement. I am advised that the working of the Weights and Measures Act would be made much more difficult by the retention of the words which my Amendment proposed to delete. In view, however, of what the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has said I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Conveyance notes in respect of sand or ballast.

4.—(1) The person in charge of any vehicle which is being used for conveying any sand or ballast—

(a) shall carry with him a note relating to that sand or ballast (hereafter in this Part of this Act referred to as a "conveyance note") in such form as may be prescribed, signed by or on behalf of the appropriate person and stating such matters as are required by this section to be stated in the note,

LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "which is." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is intended to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, and the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, in the debate on Second Reading. Clause 4 requires that the person in charge of arty vehicle which is being used for conveying any sand or ballast must, except in the case of small quantities, carry a conveyance note. Such a requirement is clearly unnecessary where the material is being carted about a private estate. This Amendment accordingly is proposed with the object of limiting the operation of the clause to cases in which the material is carried on a highway, which I am advised means a public highway. I know that my noble friend Lord Aberdeen objects to a conveyance note having to be carried about in these cases, but I would point out that this Bill interferes less than a great many Bills with people's private arrangements. I think this is practically the only obligation in such cases under the Bill, and it is really inevitable that this safeguard should be included in order to get the proper working of the Bill. I hope that this provision will go some way at all events to meet my noble friend's requirements.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 11, leave out ("which is").—(Lord Templemore.)

LORD CLWYD

I thank the noble Lord for again considering the point that I raised. What he has done is quite satisfactory to me.

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR

I think this goes some way to meet my views, bob it does not go all the way. Perhaps the noble Lord would say when he moves his later Amendment about the conveyance note whether a more or less formal printed document, which should be of stock pattern, would be sufficient to produce should an owner be carrying his own sand or ballast on the highway, or whether he must have a special conveyance note on each occasion.

LORD TEMPLEMORE

As I am informed, my noble friend need not be afraid. He will not have to have anything like so formal a document as a printed document. I think a mere written note signed by the owner or his agent would be sufficient.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, in subsection (1), immediately preceding paragraph (a), to insert "on a journey any part of which is along a highway." The noble Lord said: This and the following Amendments of mine are intended to deal with the point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, and the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen. Where an owner is carting his own material along a public highway it will be necessary for the carter to carry a conveyance note showing that the material is not being conveyed in pursuance of a sale or agreement. This makes it possible for regulations to be made to authorise the use of a single general note in such a case and thus avoid unnecessary trouble. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 12, after ("ballast") insert ("on a journey any part of which is along a highway").—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD TEMPLEMORE

I have already explained the next Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 13 and 14, leave out ("relating to that sand or ballast").—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ELTISLEY moved to insert at the end of subsection (1): Provided that where any vehicle is being used for conveying sand or ballast by or en behalf of a drainage board for the purpose of disposal only and not for sale the conveyance note shall be sufficient if it shall state that the vehicle is so employed and shall remain effective until such vehicle shall cease to be so employed.

The noble Lord said: The two Amendments which I have put down are designed to simplify procedure as far as possible. Since they were placed on the Paper the reasonableness of the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, has been again shown by the fact that he has himself put down an Amendment that different forms of conveyance notes may be prescribed in relation to different circumstances. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord could tell us what form the conveyance notes will take, because they might be fairly simple or they might be in a form that would be irritating. If we could have a statement from the noble Lord, it might be that I should not have to press my Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 35, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Eltisley.)

LORD TEMPLEMORE

As I have already said, the Government accept this Amendment in principle, and I have put down Amendments, as my noble friend has said. I cannot tell him at the moment exactly what will be the form of the conveyance notes to be used, but I cannot see why they should be particularly irritating.

LORD ELTISLEY

Might the form be settled in consultation with the organisations concerned?

LORD TEMPLEMORE

Most certainly. I will give that undertaking.

LORD ELTISLEY

In that case I will not press my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD TEMPLEMORE

I have already referred to the next two Amendments on the Paper and I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 5, lines 36 and 37, leave out ("relating to any sand or ballast conveyed in a vehicle"). Page 5, line 38, after ("ballast") insert ("to which the note relates").—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD TEMPLEMORE

The next Amendment is in connection with the matter of which I spoke just now. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 20, at end insert ("(4) Different forms of conveyance notes may be prescribed in relation to different circumstances").—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

Inspection, weighing and measuring of sand or ballast and vehicles conveying it.

5.—(1) Any inspector, and any officer of a local authority authorised in that behalf by them in writing, may inspect any vehicle which is being used for conveying any sand or ballast, and may, for the purpose of ascertaining the weight of the sand or ballast and of the vehicle, or the volume of the sand or ballast—

  1. (a) cause the vehicle, as loaded, to be weighed by means of a weighing instrument stamped by an inspector, or cause the vehicle to be unloaded and the vehicle or the sand or ballast or both to be weighed by means of such a weighing instrument as aforesaid, or (as the case may be)
  2. (b) cause the sand or ballast to be levelled in the vehicle, or to be unloaded and measured:

Provided that neither the vehicle nor the sand or ballast shall be required to be moved for a distance of more than one mile for the purpose of being weighed or measured under this subsection.

LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "inspect any vehicle which is being used for conveying any sand or ballast, and may, for the purpose of ascertaining the weight of the sand or ballast and of the vehicle, or the volume of the sand or ballast" and insert "so far as it is reasonable so to do for the purpose of giving effect to this Part of this Act, inspect any vehicle which is being used for conveying any sand or ballast, and either." The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the next one on the Paper is designed to meet a point raised in the debate on Second Reading. Clause 5 empowers an inspector of weights and measures to inspect a vehicle used for conveying sand or ballast and check its contents. There is no need for an inspector to exercise this power in a case where the owner is moving his own material since in that case there is no sale or agreement for the sale or carriage of the material. At the same time he must possess a general power which he is able to exercise if he has reasonable grounds for believing that there may be infractions of the Act. Accordingly the Amendment is proposed in order to limit the operation of Clause 5 to cases in which the use of the power of inspection is reasonably required for giving effect to this Part of the Act.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 23, leave out from ("may") to the end of line 26 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 32, leave out ("(as the case may be)"),—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved to leave out the proviso in subsection (1) and insert: Provided that if the vehicle or the sand or ballast is required to be moved more than one mile for the purpose of being weighed or measured under this subsection and the weight or measure is found to be in accordance with the weight or measure stated in that behalf by the seller or consignor, the local authority, or the purchaser or consignee, as the case may be, at whose request the requirement is made shall be liable to the payment of all reasonable costs actually incurred in and incidental to the weighing or measuring and such amount in default of agreement may be determined by a single arbitrator agreed upon by the parties.

The noble Earl said: In rural counties the limitation of one mile would render the provisions of the Bill inoperative. The proposed wording will place the matter on a similar footing to the weighing of vehicles under Section 27 of the Road Traffic Act and is, I submit, I reasonable. That section gives the limit of one mile, but gives the authority power to take a vehicle beyond one mile for the purpose of weighing, providing that if no offence is disclosed the owner of the vehicle is compensated for loss of time and inconvenience caused. It is not likely therefore that an inspector will exercise this power and have a. vehicle moved a considerable distance away unless he has very good reason for suspecting that an offence is being committed and has hope of getting a conviction. It would also afford more protection to the person who is most likely to require it, that is, the contractor who suspects that the sand or ballast being delivered to him on a job is short in weight or measure and who calls on the inspector to investigate.

In cases where the delivery is quite likely to take place several miles from the nearest suitable weighing machine it would be contrary to public policy for the inspector to have to admit that he had no power to do anything as the nearest weighing machine was more than a mile away. Where there is definite ground for suspecting that short weight or measure is being given, and the buyer appeals to the authorities for assistance in determining the question, it is detrimental to the credit of the administration when legislation is so framed as to restrict action. The section in the Weights and Measures Act, 1899, which prevents coal, carried in bulk, being taken more than half a mile for the purpose of reweighing operates distinctly to the disadvantage of buyers who live on housing estates in suburban areas or in rural districts. This disability has been manifest in recent years because of the removal of people to the outskirts of towns, and because of the wider distribution of the population it should not be retained in this proposed legislation. Unreasonable use of the facility for securing reweighing or re-measuring will be prevented by the provision that the person requiring the operation of the clause will have to take the risk of a charge for the service and only the fraudulent or careless seller will be penalised thereby. I submit that this is a matter of importance to people living on the outskirts of towns and in rural districts, and I hope to find the noble Lord in a reasonable mood in regard to the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 6, leave out lines 35 to 38 and insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Courtown.)

LORD TEMPLEMORE

I think I have shown that I am in very reasonable mood, and I am sorry to disappoint the noble Earl. I cannot accept this Amendment, although I should have liked to do so. I will state my reasons for not accepting the Amendment fairly fully, if the noble Lord will allow me. Under Clause 5 as it stands an inspector has power to require a vehicle or its contents to be weighed, but he is not authorised to take the vehicle more than a mile out of its way for this purpose. The noble Earl's Amendment proposes that an inspector should be able to take a vehicle any distance, and if the load were then found to be in order, the local authority, or the person at whose request the vehicle is weighed, would be liable to pay the costs. The loss to the owner of the vehicle, however, might be very much larger than the actual costs incurred, since not only would there be a considerable loss of time, but he might also lose business and good will by reason of the delay. I am informed that the Road Haulage Association, representing the trade interests concerned, is strongly opposed to the Amendment on these grounds. It is true that provision somewhat on the lines of the Amendment already appears in Section 27 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. That section, however, deals with cases of overloading which may be a very serious matter: questions of public interest may be at issue. Any weighing to be done under Clause 5 of the Bill, on the other hand, would be merely to detect cases of underloading; that is, cases in which the amount of material carried was less than the amount shown in the conveyance note. It is, of course, in the interests of the purchaser that short weight should be detected, but a purchaser might not appreciate a safeguard which involved several hours' delay in the delivery of his material. For these reasons I cannot accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR had given Notice of an Amendment after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause:

Saving for conveyance of sand and ballast by owners thereof.

". Nothing in this Act shall apply to the conveyance of sand and ballast by or on behalf of the owner thereof for use for his own purposes and not for the purpose of trade."

The noble Marquess said: I said all I had to say on this Amendment on the first clause. I understand that the noble Lord is not willing to accept it. I still feel that to leave the clause as it is will cause real trouble, but in the circumstance, as he has met several points I raised, I will not move it.

Clause 7:

Commencement and extent of Part I.

7.—(1) This Part of this Act shall come into operation on such day as the Board of Trade may by order appoint.

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, in subsection (1), after "day," to insert "not earlier than the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-six." The noble Marquess said: This is a very simple Amendment and I understand that the noble Lord is willing to accept it.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 18, after ("day") insert ("not earlier than the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-six").—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

Marking of bottles for use as measures.

8. A bottle of the prescribed form and material which is marked in the prescribed manner with—

  1. (a) such marks indicating its capacity when filled to a certain point as may be prescribed, and
  2. (b) such licence mark of uniform design, and such other marks, as may be prescribed,
shall, if the bottle is so marked by the manufacturer thereof under a licence granted to him in pursuance of this Part of this Act, be deemed for the purposes of the Weights and Measures Acts, 1878 to 1926, to be a measure duly verified and stamped under Section twenty-nine of the principal Act, and accordingly those Acts shall apply to the bottle as if the marks placed thereon as aforesaid were a stamp of verification duly affixed under that section.

LORD COZENS-HARDY moved, in paragraph (b), to leave out "licence". The noble Lord said: This is a minor Amendment consequent on the Amendment standing in my name on Clause 15. I thought it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I addressed to the Committee at this stage the very few remarks which I propose to make on the series of Amendments aimed at preventing the Board of Trade from having unrestricted powers to impose conditions on arty subject they please in the licence. For instance, as the Bill now stands they could impose the condition on a licence that It manufacturer should not work more than five days a week, or should not work more than so many hours a day. In fact, if the Government of the clay were in favour of anything of that kind, they could, as the Bill now stands, make it a condition of the licence and there would be no appeal at all against any condition imposed on the licence.

Since putting down the Amendments which stand in my name I have had the advantage of a conversation with the Government's advisers and they agree that the point raised by me is a real one, and that it might not be unreasonable to put some limit on the matters which could be dealt with by the Board of Trade in the conditions of the licence. If the noble Lord can give an assurance that the Government will consider the point and will put down any resulting Amendments at an early moment to give time for consideration before the later stages of the Bill, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 28, leave out ("licence").—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)

LORD TEMPLEMORE

As my noble friend has said, he has had the opportunity of consulting with the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade and the officials, and I have had the pleasure of a conversation whir him before we came to the sitting this afternoon. If I may say so at the outset, the noble Lord's premises are perhaps a little far fetched. Like many other people, he always imagines that Government Departments are going to do frightful things. I dare say that some of us have done them at some time of our lives, but on the other hand it is generally found that people are fairly reasonable. The noble Lord's Amendment, however, is one of great substance to which I must give a full answer, and perhaps I may be allowed to consider the Amendments put down by the noble Lord on Clauses 9, 10 and 12, since all these Amendments have a single purpose: that is, to remove from the Bill all provisions relating to the licensing of manufacturers by the Board of Trade.

This licensing is an essential part of the scheme. This scheme will not work unless the manufacturer possesses machinery capable of turning out bottles to such a high degree of accuracy that, if a small percentage of the bottles in each batch are found on testing to be accurate, it is safe to assume that the whole of the bottles in that batch are accurate. Before a manufacturer can properly be allowed to mark bottles under the scheme, the Board of Trade must be satisfied that he actually possesses and is able to operate this kind of machinery. The only practicable way of ensuring this is to provide that the marking of bottles under the scheme shall be subject to a licence which will be renewable from time to time. The noble Lord wanted to know if I would undertake to put down any Amendment at a later stage. With the best will in the world I am afraid I cannot give him that undertaking, but I can tell him that the conditions governing the issue of licences will be set out in the Regulations to be made, and the Regulations will be published in draft and discussed with the manufacturers before they are made. In view of what I have said I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved to leave out all words after "measure," and insert "and may be used or be in possession for use for trade for the purpose of gauging the quantity to be sold therein notwithstanding that it has not been verified and stamped in accordance with the provisions of Section twenty-nine of the principal Act." The noble Earl said: In moving this Amendment I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the position of local authorities under Part II of the Bill; that is the part relating to bottles. It is only of recent years that the practice of selling milk in bottles has been adopted, but it is very largely done at the present time. The present law requires all measures used in the trade to be stamped by an inspector of weights and measures. As was stated in the debate on the Second Reading, during the past seven years or so it has become a trade custom to use receptacles, such as milk bottles, to determine the amount of milk or liquid which is sold in them. At the request of the Board of Trade I understand, no action has been taken by local authorities to enforce the law despite the enormous number of milk bottles so used.

This state of suspension was suggested in order that the parties concerned—namely, the trade, the bottle manufacturers and the Government—could find a satisfactory solution which would be fair all round. Obviously neither the trade nor the bottle manufacturers desire the law as it stands to be put into operation and every bottle used as a measure to be legally stamped. The cost would be enormous and would only lead to an increase in the price of milk, which we all wish to avoid. On the other hand, it is very unsatisfactory from the point of view of local authorities to leave the question as it is, because they are asked to connive at something which in law is wrong and there is no adequate protection of the public as to the quantity of milk which is sold in the bottles.

The solution, I suggest, lies in a sort of halfway house, and suggestions were put up to the Board of Trade some time ago by the Society of Inspectors of Weights and Measures which, to my mind, were fair and reasonable and offered a good way out of the difficulty. The manufacturers have stated over and over again that they can make bottles of greater accuracy than the Board require. Let them, therefore, make their bottles under the suggested licence, but a bottle bearing a licence mark must not be deemed to be a properly-stamped legal measure within the meaning of the principal Act. The proposed Amendment is therefore designed to meet this objection and to provide that a bottle so marked shall only be regarded as a measure for gauging the quantity of milk sold in that bottle, and not used as a measure for measuring anything else to be sold in some other receptacle. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will consider this matter very carefully. If he is not able to accept the Amend ment at this stage, perhaps he will consider it with his advisers with a view to bringing up an Amendment at a later stage, because this is a question which those with whom I have been acting consider very important, and on which they lay great stress.

Amendment moved— Page 8, leave out lines 34 to 38 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)

LORD TEMPLEMORE

I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, because it is an essential part of the scheme that a dairyman should be able to take a bottle duly marked, fill it up to the mark, and sell it without bothering further about it. So long as there is a provision that the bottle is deemed to be a measure duly verified and stamped he can do this safely; since he will be protected from any possible prosecution for giving short measure by Section 12 (2) of the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926, assuming, of course, that he has acted innocently. On the other hand, a provision that the retailer is to be allowed to use the bottle as a measure although unstamped would do no more than absolve him from a penalty for using an unstamped measure. He would still be responsible for giving accurate measure and could not, for the purpose of pleading in his favour the protection afforded by Section 12 (2), rely upon the fact that he had used a stamped measure or a measure deemed to be such. The risk of inaccurate bottles getting into circulation will be very small indeed, but the protection given by the Statute will be necessary to maintain confidence in the trade.

THE EARL OF COURTOWN

I do not quite take it in. My point was that it was all right for a bottle that had been used for measuring milk, for instance, to be used again for milk, but the desire is not to allow a bottle, said to contain a pint of something, to be used as a measure for something else. For instance, a bottle which has contained milk may be filled again with milk, but it should not be used for measuring beer or whisky.

LORD TEMPLEMORE

I am afraid I do not quite see the point, but if the noble Earl will allow me I will look into it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9:

Licences to mark bottles.

(4) The Board of Trade may at any time revoke a licence if it is shown to their satisfaction that the holder thereof has contravened or failed to comply with any of the restrictions or conditions prescribed by virtue of this section, or has been convicted of an offence under this Part of this Act.

LORD TEMPLEMORE

I am prepared to accept the first three Amendments in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie.

Amendments moved— Page 9, line 1, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall") Page 9, line 10, after ("revoked") insert ("or suspended") Page 9, line 15, after ("revoke") insert ("or suspend").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "it is shown to their satisfaction that the holder thereof has contravened or failed to comply with any of the restrictions or conditions prescribed by virtue of this section, or, "and insert" the holder." The noble Viscount said: Before I come to this Amendment I would like to thank my noble friend for having been so reasonable. With regard to this Amendment, the tendency of Government Departments is to be too bureaucratic. Under this Bill there is no form of appeal whatever from the arbitrary decision of a Minister. I do not think any licence should be revoked except on conviction by a Court, especially where there is no power of appeal. If my noble friend will consider putting in something on Report to provide for an appeal from a Minister I shall be much obliged. Meanwhile, I will move my Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 16, leave out from ("if") to ("has") in line 19, and insert;("the holder").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)

LORD TEMPLEMORE

I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment as it stands, but I think I can meet my noble friend. In order to obtain a licence a manufacturer will have to comply with the prescribed conditions. For instance, he must have suitable machinery which will turn out bottles of a high degree of accuracy. If the Amendment were accepted he could cease to comply with the conditions as soon as he got his licence and the Board of Trade would have no power to take the licence away. It will not be sufficient to provide simply for revocation or suspension of the licence on conviction of an offence, because in some cases failure to comply with the conditions will not be an offence for which the manufacturer could be prosecuted; for instance, he could sell his accurate machinery and instal unsuitable machinery instead. If he did that he would not have committed any offence, but clearly he ought not to keep his licence. The Government are, however, prepared to accept the omission of the words "it is shown to their satisfaction that," and if my noble friend will move his Amendment in that form we shall be pleased to accept it.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

Even in that case there is no appeal, and I think there ought to be an appeal from a Minister. I will consider the matter between now and Report, and perhaps I may be able to come to terms with my noble friend. Perhaps he will move an Amendment in the form he suggests.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD TEMPLEMORE

I will move the suggested Amendment myself.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 16, leave out ("it is shown to their satisfaction that").—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD COZENS-HARDY had on the Paper an Amendment to leave out Clause 9. The noble Lord said: I do not propose to argue the Amendment in my name, because the noble Lord says he cannot accept my Amendments; but if he can find a way of dealing with the matter perhaps he will be good enough to do so.

LORD TEMPLEMORE

Any Amendments or suggestions put forward by my noble friend or any other member of your Lordships' House will always receive my best consideration.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10.

Inspection of bottles marked under a licence.

10. A bottle marked under a licence shall not be removed from the premises at which it was marked until authority for its removal therefrom has been given by an inspector, and the local authority for an area in which any premises occupied by the holder of a licence are situate shall arrange for an inspector to attend at those premises so often as is reasonably necessary for the purpose of examining and verifying bottles marked thereat and giving, or withholding, such authority as aforesaid.

LORD ELTISLEY moved to omit all words preceding "the local authority for an area." The noble Lord said: This Amendment, and also my other Amendments to this clause and to Clause 12, more or less hang together. In Part II, which contains "Provisions as to Bottles," the Bill provides that a bottle marked under a licence shall not be removed from the premises at which it was marked until an inspector has authorised its removal. It also provides that the local authority shall arrange for an inspector to attend at those premises as often as is reasonably necessary for the purpose of examining and verifying bottles marked thereat. The Amendments which have been tabled provide for an inspector to visit the premises on which bottles are being made for the purpose of inspecting bottles which have been marked there.

My Amendments do not remove the onus on the manfacturer of ensuring that the bottles contain proper measure. The attitude of the Association of Municipal Corporations, acting in conjunction with the County Councils Association, is that the attendance of the weights and measures inspectors cannot in fact be taken as verifying all the bottles, and that the licensee, that is to say, the manufacturer, who marks the bottles must shoulder the responsibility if the bottles turn out to be wrongly marked and become liable to a fine. He can provide against that contingency by means of insurance. We take the view that the casual inspection and verification of a small percentage of bottles must not be held to exonerate the supplier from giving fair legal measure. We understand that the Board of Trade propose to make regulations to the effect that a small percentage, about two per cent., of the bottles in every batch shall be verified. It is then assumed that the rest of the bottles are correct and have the same capacity and size as those which have been verified. We think that absolution should not be given in this way, but that if a man purchases a bottle of milk or beer the liability for giving full and fair measure should be upon the seller. That is the purpose of these Amendments—to see that the onus of responsibility remains on the manufacturer of the bottles.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 21, leave out from the beginning to ("the") in line 24.—(Lord Eltisley.)

THE EARL OF COURTOWN

Before the Government replies, I should like to support the Amendments standing in the names of Lord Eltisley and myself, because these Amendments are supported by the Association of Municipal Corporations, as well as by the County Councils Association and the Society of Inspectors of Weights and Measures. Tinder the Bill as it stands, it will mean that about six authorities will be charged with the duty of examining and verifying the whole of the output of the glass bottles of this country, which I believe runs into something like thirty-six millions. That would mean also a very considerable increase in the number of inspectors which those particular local authorities would have to appoint, and it would also add very much to the cost; whereas if they were only charged with the duty of going in to inspect—which I suggest might also include testing—they would be able to see whether the conditions of the licence under which the bottles were being manufactured were being carried out, and it could be left to the large body of inspectors to test any particular bottle that they might suspect as having been inaccurately made, or not made under the licence and in accordance with the terms of the licence. I hape therefore that the Government will accept this Amendment.

LORD TEMPLEMORE

It will be convenient to consider the proposed Amendments to Clauses 10, 11 and 12 together, as they appear to be part of a single plan for altering the basis of the scheme provided in the Bill for the marking of bottles. That scheme depends essentially upon the fact that, if a manufacturer is provided with suitable modern machinery and also takes proper precautions in the operation of the machinery, he is able to turn out bottles to a very high degree of accuracy, so that if an inspector can ascertain by a sampling test that a certain percentage of the bottles in a particular batch are, in fact, accurate it is safe to assume that all the bottles in that batch will be accurate. Accordingly, it is contemplated that after a sampling test, for which provision is made in Clause 11, the inspector should have power under Clause 10 to authorise the release of a complete batch of bottles. The effect of the proposed Amendments to Clause 10 is to delete the requirement that the removal of bottles from the manufacturer's works shall be authorised by an inspector. If this precaution is taken out of the scheme the responsibility for ensuring that proper safeguards are applied in all cases will rest solely with the manufacturer; and if, through any failure in these safeguards, some thousands of inaccurate bottles get into circulation, months may elapse before the error is detected and, even then, it will not be possible for the inaccurate bottles to be recalled.

The proposed Amendments to Clause 11 take away the power of the Board of Trade to make regulations as to a sampling test and to fix the fees, and would have the effect that it would rest solely with local authorities to decide how often an inspector should visit works where bottles were being made, and how many bottles he should test. It is possible that in one district an inspector might insist on testing every bottle made, while in another district thousands or millions of milk bottles might be put into circulation without ever being seen by an inspector. Such lack of uniformity in practice would have most unsatisfactory results from every point of view, and particularly from the point of view of the manufacturers. The proposed Amendments to Clause 12 (2) would have the effect of rendering every licensed manufacturer liable to a penalty if any bottle which he issued were found to be inaccurate. It is of course true that, by the use of proper machinery and by taking proper precautions, a manufacturer can be reasonably certain that all the bottles he issues will be accurate and can make the risk of an inaccurate bottle being sent out a very small risk. He cannot, however, eliminate this risk entirely, except by testing every bottle separately. I am informed that the glass manufacturers are strongly opposed to these Amendments and that the manufacturers would find great difficulty in working the scheme if the Amendments were adopted. I cannot accept this Amendment, and I hope my noble friend will not press it.

LORD PHILLIMORE

This seems to me a point of very considerable importance. May I ask on whom the onus will lie if a bottle is found being used in retail sale so constructed as to contain short measure? Will there be no redress for the consumer against anybody at all? Or will there merely be blame attached to the inspector who passed the bottle inadvertently at the factory? Is that the correct picture, because, if so, it seems to me to be quite contrary to the usual practice of commerce and to be giving away a very valuable safeguard for the common people.

LORD ADDINGTON

May I ask how large the batches of bottles will be before an inspector passes them? Will it be every day, or every week, or every fortnight that the manufacturer will be able to send them out?

LORD TEMPLEMORE

That is obviously a question I cannot answer at the moment. It presumably will depend fin his activity and upon the other duties that the inspector has to perform.

LORD ELTISLEY

I hope the noble Lord will see his way to accept the Amendment. He has told us that the machines which make these bottles work with extraordinary accuracy, and there is very little chance of the bottles being wrongly made. At the same time there may be some temptation to make the bottles a wrong size. But be that as it may, I feel that the consumer's interest is the major interest rather than the interest of the manufacturer.

THE EARL OF COURTOWN

Might I add one word to urge this very strongly. I do not think it is fair either to the local authority or to the inspectors. I believe the Board of Trade suggest making regulations under which 2 per cent. of the output of these factories will be examined and verified. Even though 2 per cent. may run into very large figures, I suggest that an individual inspector who has examined so small a proportion should not be made responsible for the output of the whole factory. We have heard that these factories can turn out these bottles so accurately that if one batch is practically correct all the rest will be the same. But, even so, it will be possible for slips to be made, and it would be absolutely impossible for any inspector to inspect so small a quantity as 2 per cent. and be thoroughly satisfied that the output of that factory is as it should be.

LORD MARLEY

I think this is a very difficult point, and I cannot help thinking that the guiding principle in these Amendments should be the interests of the consumer, and the consumer ought somehow to have a remedy when he buys milk in a marked bottle which has by any chance been wrongly marked. It might be wrongly marked through a certain local authority appointing too few inspectors and bottles being emitted from a machine either fraudulently or of too small a size, and those bottles could never be traced. They would be measured bottles in circulation among millions of people, and constantly giving a wrong measure. On the other hand, you might equally have the case of a fraudulent inspector, a bribed inspector, who, by reason of a bribe, would pass millions of bottles which should not be passed and that would be equally damaging to the consumer. The point I want to ask the noble Lord to consider is this: whichever decision is reached—and I can see difficulties in both—can it be arranged that, to protect the consumer, every bottle should be marked, not only with a mark showing the size and the contents of the bottle, but with the manufacturer's mark, so that it could be traced back either to the manufacturer, to the machine, to the local authority, or to the inspector of the particular bottle?

LORD TEMPLEMORE

I am very much obliged to the noble Lord opposite for his suggestion, and in view of the general sense of the Committee I will undertake to consider this matter before the next stage.

LORD ELTISLEY

I should like to thank the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD TEMPLEMORE

The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 28, leave out ("verifying") and insert ("testing").—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12:

Offences

12.—(1) If any person—

(d) knowingly uses, sells, utters, disposes of or exposes for sale—

(iii) any bottle or other vessel which is marked in a manner so closely resembling the prescribed manner as to be calculated to deceive,

that person shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, and the bottle or other vessel, as the case may be, shall be liable to be forfeited:

LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, in paragraph (d), to leave out "or." The noble Lord said: This clause makes it an offence to use, sell, etc., certain bottles which are improperly marked. For the efficient administration of such a provision it is desirable to include the case in which a person has such a bottle in his possession for sale. There is precedent for this in the Merchandise Marks Acts, and my Amendments cover this.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 14, leave out ("or").—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD TEMPLEMORE

The next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 15, after ("sale") insert ("or has in his possession for sale").—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD TEMPLEMORE

My next Amendments are drafting Amendments.

Amendments moved— Page 10, line 33, leave out ("or") after ("sale") insert ("or possession for sale").—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13:

Commencement and extent of Part II.

13.—(1) This Part of this Act shall come into operation on such day as the Board of Trade may by order appoint.

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, in subsection (1), after "day," to insert "not earlier than the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-six." The noble Marquess said: I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 2, after ("day") insert the said new words.—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)

LORD TEMPLEMOBE

I accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15:

Laying of regulations before Parliament.

15. Any regulations made under this Act by the Board of Trade shall, as soon as may be after they are made, be laid before Parliament.

LORD TEMPLEMORE moved to add to the clause: "and if either House of Parliament, within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulations are laid before it, resolves that the regulations be annulled, they shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of new regulations." The noble Lord said: This is to meet the point raised by the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen. It ensures that the regulations to be made under the Act shall be subject to the control of either House of Parliament. It is in the usual form.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 16, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16 [Legal proceedings]:

THE EARL OF COURTOWN

I have not put down an Amendment to this clause, but, I may, I should like to detain your Lordships for a moment or two in order to draw the attention of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to a very important matter, and to suggest to him how the law could be clarified where at present there is confusion. I regret that the Board of Trade have not taken the opportunity of removing the anomalies caused by the words "construed as one" in Section 15 of the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926, which arose after the decision in the well-known case of Hart versus Hudson in 1928. In that case it was held that the many safeguarding and other provisions (such as time limits and serving of notices, etc.), easily carried out in cases relating to short weight or measure in sales of food, were equally applicable to all other offences under the Weights and Measures Act by virtue of the words "to be construed as one" contained in Section 15 of the Sale of Food Act, a point unforeseen by the Board of Trade when the Act was drafted.

This is becoming a serious handicap, and, indeed, may have far-reaching effects which will cripple local authorities in their administration of the whole of the Weights and Measures Acts. Already inspectors are finding grave difficulties in the way, not only in cases of legal proceedings, but in the application of statutory duties which have been disturbed by the effect of the phrase quoted. The Lord Chief Justice, indeed, said in the case of hart versus Hudson: This case is a striking example of the difficulties and obscurity which arise from legislation by reference to and incorporation of other Statutes. And in another case, Phillips versus Parnaby, 1934, which had the effect of applying an Act regulating the sale of food to coal, the Lord Chief Justice said: One is tempted to wonder whether, in Section 15 of the Act of 1926, the Legislature was consciously applying the provisions of that Statute to a sale such as at, present. Definitely the Board of Trade did not intend to narrow the scope and operation of the whole weights and measures administration. The effect of the words "to be construed as one" were not contemplated when the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act was passed. The present Bill affords an opportunity to remove the many anomalies that have arisen already and will prevent others cropping up, the contemplation of which is a cause for grave alarm to the local authorities and their inspectors. I am not a lawyer, and therefore I have hesitated to put down any Amendment, but I suggest to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that he should consider the matter with his advisers with a view to seeing whether it is not possible to bring forward an Amendment at a later stage to clear up the position.

LORD TEMPLEMORE

I had no notice that my noble friend was going to raise this very technical matter, but I shall consider it before the next stage.

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clause 17 [Duties of inspectors]:

LORD TEMPLEMORE

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 30, after ("Act") insert ("or any regulations made under this Act").—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18 agreed to.

Clause 19 [Interpretation]:

LORD TEMPLEMORE

These Amendments are all drafting Amendments.

Amendments moved— Page 12, line 15, leave out from the second "authority") to the end of line 18 and insert ("for the purposes of the principal Act") Page 12, line 23, leave out ("stamped") Page 12, line 25, after ("Act") insert ("and 'stamped' and 're-stamped' shall be construed accordingly").—(Lord Templemore.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

LORD GAINFORD

On the Second Reading I ventured to bring to the notice of your Lordships that the Board of Trade had omitted to consult with the various parties concerned. As the result of my protest, the various parties have now been consulted, and they desire to thank the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, and the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade for the way in which they have met them. The delays which have occurred in your Lordships' House to-day entirely arose because the parties were not consulted before the Bill was introduced.

Forward to