Lords Sitting of 8 December 1960

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Wool sack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester

THE CHRISTMAS RECESS
2.35 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it has been arranged through the usual channels that we should discuss the Committee stage of the Weights and Measures Bill for approximately three hours this afternoon, and then adjourn the Committee stage at somewhere between 5.30 and 6 o'clock.
It is hoped that all necessary business will have been disposed of in time for the House to adjourn for the Christmas Recess on Wednesday, December 21, until Tuesday, January 24.

ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Craigton, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(The Earl of Dundee.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I cannot let go by the occasion of the Third Readings of these three Scottish Confirmation measures, moved by the noble Earl on behalf of his colleague the Minister of State for Scotland, without saying that we hear with great regret the reason which prevents the noble Lord, Lord Craigton. from being here. We know he has been ill as a consequence of his experience, and we hope very much that he is making progress and will soon be with us again.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

CLYDE NAVIGATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.
FORTH ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL [H.L.]
2.38 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Local standards
4.—
(7) The Board may demand and take on any occasion on which an article is submitted to them for certification under this section such fee as they may from time to time with the approval of the Treasury determine.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved to leave out subsection (7). The noble Lord said: This is the opening of an exercise which may well prove to be somewhat lengthy, and it falls to me, whether as an honour or otherwise, to move the first Amendment. There are numerous Amendments and I apprehend that there will be more, but I am sure that we all wish to cooperate to make this measure a successful one and to see to it that it achieves in maximum measure the purposes which have led to its introduction.
The purposes of the Amendment which I move to Clause 4 are these. Although existing legislation provides for the payment of fees to the Board of Trade in respect of their services in relation to local authorities' standards, it is thought now, having regard to the obligations which are cast upon local authorities,

183
that there is no longer any justification for a Government Department to pass on charges to local authorities. The local authorities are under a statutory duty to provide local standards: similarly, the Board are under a statutory duty to certify standards. The local authorities pay for the provision of the standards, and it seems to me that it is fair that the Board should pay for the certification of the standards which are submitted to them for comparison with the tertiary standards which are required to be maintained by the Board.
Moreover, the Board should be financially responsible for carrying out these statutory functions in the same way as local authorities are obliged to bear the cost of carrying out an infinity of duties which have from time to time been laid upon them by Parliament. Why pass this additional charge on to the local authorities? Surely with housing, education, highways and the many other services which the local authorities are statutorily required to provide—and I do not dissent from that they are carrying a sufficient financial burden, and the Board of Trade (which means, of course, the Treasury) should bear the costs of certification. It is for those reasons that I move the Amendment, and I hope that the Government will find themselves able to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, leave out subsection (7).—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am certainly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Latham, for the gentle and stylish way in which he has kicked off in this long match which is in front of us, and I hope that our wing forwards will not run too fast or kick the ball into touch too often.
LORD LATHAM: I think I should say that I have another pair of boots.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Well, we have not gat a goalkeeper on our side; that is the trouble.
With regard to the Amendment, I was not quite clear whether the noble Lord wanted to abolish the whole system of the charging of fees by the Board of Trade, and also by the local authorities and other public bodies, such as the National Physical Laboratory, which has
184
been the practice since at least 1923. I rather gathered from the noble Lord's remarks in moving the Amendment that he thought that the local authorities were not allowed to charge fees for this service. But they are. They commonly charge fees, and the Government think it right that work of this kind should be remunerated by a fee, whichever may be the body that is performing the service. I do not think that we could reasonably be expected to accept the situation in which the local authorities were remunerated and were paid the appropriate fees for work done, while the Board of Trade were not permitted to charge any fee. I hope the noble Lord will agree that that view is reasonable.
LORD LATHAM: Is it the case that the local authorities are recouped for what they are required to pay over to the Board of Trade?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: They can charge fees which will recoup themselves for what they pay over to the Board of Trade, and in fact they always do charge fees. I have no scales with me as to the amounts which are usually charged, but they certainly can, and do, recoup themselves from the fees which they charge for the services which they render in this respect. That is the reason why I do not think it would be fair to the Board of Trade to say that they should not be allowed to accept fees while the local authorities are.
LORD LATHAM: I am not sure that we are ad idem here. As I understand it, the Board of Trade require the local authorities to pay over to them certain fees for work which is done by the Board. It may well be the case—I am not disputing it—that, in respect of work done by local authorities, the local authorities can recoup themselves from the person for whom the work is done, and there is no inequity in that. My point is that the Board of Trade are charging the local authorities for the work which they do, and my submission is that that ought to be discontinued because it is unfair, and in any case,qua the Board, is to some extent de minimis
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not know whether this is just a difference of opinion, or perhaps a misunderstanding. Subsection (7), which the noble Lord

185
is proposing by his Amendment to omit, authorises the Board of Trade to charge fees for the testing and retesting of local standards, the amount of such fees being subject to approval by the Treasury. The local authorities also charge fees to the traders, the people who use the testing standards and the weighing machines, for their services in testing and approving them. This has been the case ever since 1923, and we do not think it would be fair to rule now that the Board of Trade must do this at their own expense and not be allowed to charge fees, while the local authorities can charge fees and not pay anything to the Board of Trade. The local authorities are not out of pocket over the general transaction.
LORD LATHAM: If I may say so, the local authorities are out of pocket, because they cannot pass on to the traders what they pay to the Board of Trade for services rendered by the Board of Trade. They can pass on to the trader, and no doubt do, charges for services which they themselves,qua local authorities, render to the trader; but the charge which is made by the Board of Trade for certification cannot be passed on, is not passed on, and has to be borne by the local authorities.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Then there is no misunderstanding: there is simply a slight difference of opinion. It seems to me that the case I put is just and right.
LORD SILKIN: I have my name down to this Amendment, but we do not want to make heavy weather of it. It looks as if there is a misunderstanding. As we understand the clause, the local standard must be approved by the Board of Trade and certified, and we think that there should not be a fee payable in respect of that. That is all we are concerned with in this clause. There is nothing in the clause about allowing other people to make use of the local standard and charging fees. We are merely concerned with the specific service performed by the Board of Trade of giving a certificate, and the purpose of this Amendment—at least, one of the purposes—is to ensure that that service shall be granted without fee. I should have made a subsidiary point as well. If fees are to be charged, it seems to
186
me to be rather arbitrary to say "such fees as the Board of Trade determine" without any consultation with the local authorities. But if the noble Earl has any service in mind which the local authorities render as the result of the certification—which is no doubt dealt with in another provision—I should have thought the two should be separated.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It is not dealt with in another part of this Bill; I think it is dealt with in an Act of 1923. But the fact is that the local authorities do charge fees for the testing of the traders' weights, and the amount which they charge is an amount calculated to reimburse them for all their expenses, including the testing of their own standards by the Board of Trade. So they always have been in the habit of recouping themselves for the fees which the Board of Trade charge. It seems to us that it is just that skilled work of this kind should receive this remuneration.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: In the light of the discussion, we will look at this clause again, and at this point I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Working standards and testing and stamping equipment]:
2.50 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the proviso and to substitute:
"Provided that, if in the case of any particular description of testing equipment and any particular local weights and measures authority the authority are of opinion that, having regard to the expenditure involved and the frequency with which such equipment is likely to be used by inspectors in that authority's area, it would not be reasonable that such equipment should be provided and maintained by that authority or by them and any other authority, the Board may. at the request of the authority, provide and maintain equipment of that description for hiring by that authority from time to time on such terms as may be agreed.
The noble Lord said: As drafted, the proviso to Clause 5 (1) gives an absolute discretion to the Board of Trade to provide and hire testing equipment to an authority on terms to be determined by the Board, even if the authority would

187
prefer to provide or to arrange for the provision of the equipment. I understand that many authorities at present have arrangements with others for the sharing with or hiring from those other authorities of certain kinds of testing equipment, particularly weighbridge testing equipment. I am informed that in practice these arrangements work exceptionally well, and the object of my Amendment is to protect such arrangements from the arbitrary interference of the Board of Trade. No doubt it will be maintained by the noble Earl, on behalf of the Government, that there will be no such interference, but I understand that the experience of local authorities is such that they feel they should be free to determine these matters for themselves and that there is no justification for writing into the Bill a proviso which gives the Board of Trade, in effect, a veto in them.
Similarly, the charges to be made by the Board of Trade for the provision of equipment to local authorities should be a matter of mutual agreement and at arm's length across the table, and should not rest solely within the discretion of the Board of Trade, as provided in the terms of the proviso in the Bill. On innumerable occasions within the last few years we have been told, in justification of proposals in regard to financing local authorities, that the Government's steady and determined purpose is to minimise interference in the activities of local authorities. The Government are always declaiming that. It was on that basis that the block grant was reintroduced and education brought within its provisions. Why should the Board of Trade, on a matter which involves no question of policy, be given this power to veto and to settle as they may please all the arrangements with regard to the provision and use of this equipment? I hope in this respect that the Government will recognise their obligation to their own doctrine that local government should not be interfered with except in essential respects. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 41 and insert the said new proviso. —(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: When this Amendment was put on the Marshalled
188
List, I thought that it might have originated in a misunderstanding by the local authorities of this part of the Bill with regard to the provision by the Board of Trade of equipment on loan. I hope that any misapprehension is now removed. At first, the local authorities formed the view that the Board of Trade required them to accept equipment on loan, but that is not the correct interpretation of the clause. There is no power whatever for the Board of Trade to compel local authorities to hire equipment if they do not wish to do so. The noble Lord mentioned railway weighbridge-testing equipment. In some cases, this may be very expensive, costing tens of thousands of pounds. I do not think that equipment of this kind would be used very often by any one local authority. What is contemplated is that the Board of Trade should acquire such equipment, keep it and hire it out to local authorities, or to combinations of local authorities, which we want very much to encourage for these purposes, whenever they may require it.
The noble Lord's Amendment lays down that equipment could be acquired by the Board of Trade only at the request of local authorities. The fact is that we do not want to lend equipment to local authorities if it is the kind of equipment which they ought to provide for themselves and which they would not be justified in asking the Board of Trade to lend them. The actual effect of the Amendment would be that local authorities would be able to request the Board of Trade for various kinds of equipment which the Board of Trade may not want to lend them. There is no question whatever of the Board of Trade seeking to compel them to hire equipment which they do not want.
LORD LATHAM: The noble Earl said that local authorities at one stage thought there was some difficulty, but that that difficulty has been removed. Is that so?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I was referring to a recent discussion which took plate between local authority representatives and the Board of Trade. The local authority representatives expressed the view that this clause, which the Amendment seeks to alter, had the effect of compelling local authorities to accept loans of equipment from the Board of

189
Trade which local authorities might not wish to accept—they might prefer to have their own. I thought that the local authority representatives had been persuaded that they had been under a misapprehension. That was why I was not quite sure whether the noble Lord had been informed of this discussion, or whether ·he had put down the Amendment before it took place and was not aware that the misapprehension had been removed.
LORD LATHAM: I have certainly not been informed of any discussion. So far as I know, the local authorities still have grave doubts of the power of the Board of Trade in this connection. They use the words "absolute discretion" and it seems to me that these words are appropriate to the powers which the Board of Trade are proposing to take in this clause. Suppose it is the case that certain elements of equipment are costly. Whether costly or not, whether they should be bought or not is determined by the size of the local authority and the work which they have to do in connection with the equipment. It does not follow that, because equipment is expensive, the Board of Trade should claim the right to provide it themselves and have absolute discretion to veto proposed arrangements between local authorities. Let the local authorities alone. Let them get on with their job. Let Parliament prescribe the duties of focal authorities and leave them to carry then: out.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I have done my best to explain to the noble Lord that it is the object of the Government to encourage local authorities to do precisely that to make their own arrangements among themselves—and that there is no power under Clause 5 for the Board of Trade to require them to hire equipment which they do not want. It is simply a provision to enable the Board of Trade to get this equipment and keep it, in case they find that it may be needed.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Looking at it carefully, I must agree with my noble friend that the powers are extraordinarily wide. I do not see in the wording the limitations which the noble Earl thinks that the Board of Trade will place upon themselves under the powers in this
190
Clause I wish the noble Earl would have his advisers look at this again. If it comes to the innovation of large and expensive equipment, which may or may not be necessary, in the view of a local authority, it seems to me that under the present wording of the clause the Board of Trade can say to a local authority that "in this area, whether it is in your own backyard or not, we will provide such equipment and will charge you with the cost of whatever it takes." I think this point should be clarified.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: If it was expensive equipment which no local authority was ever likely to hire, the Board of Trade would certainly not spend money on getting it, nor would the Treasury allow them to do so.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Oh, well!
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: If it will make the noble Viscount any happier I will certainly ask that the terms of this clause should be re-examined, but I think he is persisting in a misinterpretation of the clause as it stands. There is no power to require the local authorities to accept loans of equipment if they do not wish to.
LORD LATHAM: I am sorry to persist in this matter, but if the clause is read, I submit that it does not coincide with the views expressed, no doubt in good faith, by the noble Earl. It says:
"Provided that, if in the case of any particular description of testing equipment and any particular local weights and measures authority the Board are of opinion"—
not "the Board and the local authority are of opinion"—
"that, having regard to the expenditure involved and the frequency with which such equipment is likely to be used by inspectors in that authority's area, it would not be reasonable to require such equipment to be provided"—
who determines whether it is reasonable or not, except the Board of Trade?—
"and maintained by that authority, the Board may"—
not "may after consultation with the local authorities"; not "with the consent of the local authorities", but of its own volition—
"themselves provide and maintain equipment of that description for hiring by that authority from time to time"—

191
and then—
"on such terms as the Board may determine."—
not "on such terms as may be agreed between the parties", but such as the Board may determine. If that is not a power of veto and of saying what shall be done; if that is not a power of an absolute discretion left to the Board, I should like to know what the English language means.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I would suggest to the noble Lord that the English language here is quite clear.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM: It is, yes.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It says:
"…the Board may themselves provide and maintain equipment of that description for hiring by that authority from time to time on such terms as the Board may determine."
The terms are determined by the Board; but the Board cannot determine whether the local authority decides to hire it or not. There is not a word in that clause to justify that interpretation. I assure the noble Lord that it is not the correct interpretation of the clause; nor is it the intention of the Board of Trade that local authorities shall be required to hire equipment which they do not want to hire. It is a pity, perhaps, to waste time over a verbal misunderstanding. Of course I will ask for it to be looked at again, but I cannot see that there is any ground whatever for the belief that there is any element of compulsion in the hiring. What the noble Lord has inferred from the clause is that if
"the Board are of opinion that, having regard to the expenditure involved…such equipment is likely to be used by inspectors in that authority's area, it would not be reasonable to require such equipment to be provided and maintained…"
But that does not mean that the local authority have got to hire the equipment which the Board provide and maintain for the purpose of hiring. I would assure the noble Lord that the correct interpetation of the clause is as I have stated. However, I will certainly look at the wording again if it is felt that it should be made clearer.
LORD SILKIN: I do not think the noble Earl has quite got the point, even now. I think we should accept that he will have it looked at again, but if he
192
looks at the first part, to which this is a proviso, he will see that it puts upon the local authorities a definite obligation to provide such testing equipment
"as the Board may from time to time approve or require".
The Board can either approve something which they provide or they can require the authority to provide it. Then there is the proviso, that in certain circumstances the Board, instead of requiring the local authority to provide it, may provide it themselves. Is that not putting a definite obligation on the local authority? The noble Earl says that they are under no obligation to hire the equipment. But if they do not get the authority of the Board of Trade to provide it, and the Board of Trade do not require them to provide it, they are then left with no choice but to hire it from the Board of Trade.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Surely there is a distinction between requiring them to provide the equipment which it is their duty to provide for themselves and requiring them to hire equipment from the Board of Trade. If the local authorities decide, either individually or collectively, that they prefer to provide their own equipment and not to hire it from the Board of Trade, they are not compelled by this clause to hire it from the Board of Trade. This is a difficult matter, of course. The Board must have power to require local authorities to provide themselves with such equipment as they need, but they cannot dictate the manner in which they shall provide it. They can provide it themselves; they can combine with each other to provide it; or they can, if they prefer, hire it under this clause from the Board of Trade. I assure the noble Lord that there is no question of their being forced to accept on loan equipment from the Board of Trade which they would require for themselves.
LORD SILKIN: If that is the intention, then I suggest that this whole provision will need amendment. If the noble Earl will have it looked at again in the spirit in which he himself has now said that he desires the clause to be understood, I think we should be prepared to accept that.
THE EARI, OF DUNDEE: I am grateful to the noble Lord. He will understand that he has not convinced me that

193
this does need amendment, because I do not see the verbal basis for the interpretation he is giving to the clause. But, of course, we are all trying to make this Bill the best we can, and certainly we will look at it and see if it can be reasonably amended in order to simplify the matter.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Would the noble Earl bear two things in mind? The first is that a proper technical examination of a technical Bill is not a waste of time. The second thing is that it is our view, especially in view of his speech on this Amendment, that to do what he says will be done in the kind of manner he says will require our Amendment to authorise it. That is what is required in the amendment of the Bill.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The Amendment which is on the Marshalled List will not, in my submission, have that effect at all; and I am dealing with the Amendment on the Marshalled List. But if the noble Viscount is genuinely afraid that this clause may be interpreted in a way which the Board of Trade do not believe it can be interpreted, of course we will look at it with the greatest attention.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Testing of other standards and equipment
(3) The fee payable to the Board under section twenty of the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act, 1928, in respect of tests of apparatus under that section shall be such as the Board may from time to time with the approval of the Treasury determine; and accordingly in subsection (1) of that section the words "not exceeding twenty shillings" shall cease to have effect.
3.10 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The noble Lord, Lord Latham, took it as an honour to be moving the first Amendment to this Bill, and lit can be hardly less of an honour to be moving the first three Government Amendments. Rather than speak for any greater length of time than is necessary. I would ask your Lordships to allow me to refer to Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 together, as they are closely related.
194
By virtue of subsection (3) of this clause, the Board of Trade will be able to prescribe a more realistic fee for the testing and stamping of flash-point apparatus under Section 20 of the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act, 1928, but unable to prescribe any fee where the apparatus is tested and rejected. This Amendment is designed to remedy this omission and to enable the Board to require payment of a fee under the Act of 1928 when the apparatus is rejected as a result of being tested. The fee will not necessarily be as much as that payable on stamping. This will put the testing of flash-point apparatus on all-fours with the other testing work carried out by the Board and by local authorities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 37, leave out ("The fee") and insert ("Such fees shall be").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6. line 39, leave out ("shall be such").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 42, leave out ("shall cease to have effect") and insert ("the words 'and to be verified', and the words verified and' in the last two places where those words occur, shall cease to have effect").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
LORD DERWENT: I had contemplated putting, down an Amendment on subsection (3), but I thought I should first hear what Her Majesty's Government had to say on the point I am going to raise and then, if necessary, I can put down an Amendment on the Report stage. This is roughly the same point as came up in the Patents Bill earlier in the week in your Lordships' House. Under the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act, 1928, there was a maximum fee of 20s. I agree that with the present value of money this is far too low. But what has happened here is the same thing as the Government tried to do on the other Bill. They have taken away' the maximum because it was too low, and they have put in no new maximum.
On the other Bill the opinion was expressed, with which I largely agreed, that this could be used by the Treasury

195
at some future date, not for charging a fee to cover expenses (and it is quite clear in the 1928 Act that that was the intention regarding the fee) but as a revenue-raising tax. It looks as if that may be in the Treasury mind, because in the 1928 Act this fee was charged by the Board of Trade. It had a maximum, but the amount of the fee was settled by the Board of Trade. Under this new Bill the fee is settled by the Board of Trade after the Treasury have agreed—something quite different. As I say, I have not put down an Amendment now because I wanted to hear what my noble friend was going to say. But I think this is rather a dangerous position, and I hope that the Government will put down an Amendment on the next stage. If they do not, I shall do so.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I can certainly undertake to look at the whole point of a new ceiling raised by my noble friend. Of course, he will realise that the last maximum of 20s. became unrealistic, and we are not anxious to create a new ceiling which might in the future also become unrealistic. But I can assure him that the matter will be looked at.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am glad to hear that. I am pleased that the noble Lord has put his finger upon a spot about which we were a little uncertain—whether we could use exactly the same argument as was used on the Patents Bill. But on his speech I think we can. I think he has a good point. We are glad that the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, is going to have it looked at again. But if Lord Derwent puts an Amendment down on this point and is not satisfied when he has considered the answer, I think it is quite likely that we shall support him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Commission on Units and Standards of Measurement
7.—(1) There shall be established a Commission on Units and Standards of Measurement to advise the Board on matters relating to such units and standards.
(2) The commission shall consist of nine members appointed by the Board as follows, that is to say—
(f) three from among persons appearing to the Board to have a good knowledge of industry or commerce;
and the Board shall from time to time appoint a chairman of the commission from amongst the persons appointed to be members thereof.
3.16 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved, in subsection (2) to leave out "nine". The noble Lord said: In rising to propose Amendment No. 6 on the Paper, I would ask the permission of the Committee to deal at the same time with Amendment No. 9, because the object of Amendment No. 6 is to make room for the proposal in Amendment No. 9. I am aware that the Commission on Units and Standards of Measurment is to advise the Board of Trade primarily on technical questions relating to weights and measures, and provision is made in subsection (2) (f) for three members to be appointed from among persons appearing to the Board to have a good knowledge of industry and commerce. But no provision is made for members to be appointed from authorities having duties to perform under the Bill. It is submitted that there is a strong case for local weights and measures authorities, acting through their appropriate association, to be allowed to nominate members of the Commission.
I am aware that the composition of the Commission, as now proposed by Clause 7, subsection (2) of the Bill, is in accordance with the recommendation in paragraph 77 of the Committee on Weights and Measures Legislation, but, surely, the addition of representatives of those authorities who will be concerned with the administration of the Act is a desirable proposal. It would enable the associations representing local weights and measures authorities to confer together and to nominate for appointment to the Commission persons with a practical experience of the duties to be performed under the Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 4, leave out ("nine").—(Lord Milverton.)
LORD LATHAM: It may be for the convenience of your Lordships to take with Amendments Nos. 6 and 9, Amendments Nos. 7 and 10, which seek the same purpose—that is, that the Commission should be enlarged from nine to twelve, and that there should be representation

197
by way of three of the associations of local authorities who are weights and measures authorities. That seems to me to be a most reasonable proposal.
The proposed Commission will have pretty wide powers, and they will, of course, be determining from time to time the standards which are to be applied and, therefore, to be enforced, by the authorities responsible. There enters into the application of standards and requirements always two elements: one, the theoretical element, and the other the practical element. Surely, it is the authorities who are administering the provisions of the Act who have the experience of the practical element. They may not be theoreticians or statisticians, but they know what happens in the day-to-day life and day-to-day operation of this protection for the public. It is much to be hoped that the Government will show their appreciation, not only of the work which has been done already by weights and measures authorities, but also of the capacity of the weights and measures authorities, whomsoever they may be, in the future to carry out the enlarged and wider duties which have been cast upon them. I am sure that representatives of the authorities in question could bring to the deliberations and activities of the Commission wisdom, help and practical experience. I hope, therefore, that the Government may, not churlishly but willingly and generously, accept and appreciate the status of these local authorities and accept the Amendments on the paper.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: These five Amendments on Clause 7, which are concerned with the composition of the Commission, fall into two groups. The effect of the Amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, would be not to limit the size of the Commission to 12 but to leave it entirely unlimited, and at the same time would require that three of its members should be appointed on the recommendation of associations representing local weights and measures authorities. The Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Latham, would provide that the Commission should be limited to twelve, that it should, as the noble Lord, Lord Milverton wishes, contain three representatives appointed by local authorities, and that one of the others should have "adequate experience of the organisation of workers."
LORD LATHAM: That Amendment has not been moved yet.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I was not quite sure whether your Lordships wanted to deal with all these Amendments as if they were draughts of beer, to be taken one after the other rapidly at the end of the conversation, or whether you would prefer to treat them as a glass of vintage port with a certain amount of intelligent conversation between sips.
LORD STONHAM: Will the noble Earl allow me to intervene? I do not know whether he thinks it an advantage to reply to the arguments before he has heard them.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I would never think that a particularly advantageous thing to do. Of course the replies 'to the two cases are very much the same. I understand that Amendment No. 8 is not now being discussed but that Amendments 6, 7, 9 and 10 are being taken together. I am glad to have that quite clear. I think it is obviously for everybody's convenience.
The functions of the Commission will be very specialised and technical functions. We have followed the recommendation of the Hodgson Committee, except that we thought it rather unreasonable that the Commission should actually include the Astronomer Royal himself, the Director of the National Physical Laboratory himself and the President of the Royal Society, all sitting as ex officio members. We thought it might be more convenient that each of those gentlemen should recommend a member for the Commission. One with a knowledge of law may be recommended by the Lord Chancellor and two by the Minister for Science, the other three being appointed on the recommendation of the President of the Board of Trade. The functions of the Commission will not be concerned either with the practical administration of this Act by the local authorities or with the enforcement of measures under Part IV and the corresponding Schedules regarding the sale of goods which are sold by weight or by measure. The functions of the Commission will be purely academic functions, to determine what the best kinds of weights and measures are—such questions, for example, as whether a gallon measure should be defined in terms of a pound or in terms

199
of a litre, or questions regarding the relationship between the metric system and our own present imperial system.
The three members to be appointed by the Board of Trade are supposed to have "a good knowledge of industry and commerce". That qualification is mentioned because the various distinctions and inconsistencies at present existing in our laws as between the metric system and the imperial system and the numerous variations of the imperial system are matters on which people with experience of industry and commerce would be in a position very often to give useful and helpful advice. But there is no reason, of course, why people who are appointed by the Board of Trade should not also have experience of local authority work or (I do not want to anticipate Lord Stonham's Amendment) of workers' organisation.
The Government do not, however, feel that it would be helpful to make it a condition that certain members of the Commission should be appointed for reasons which are not relevant to the work which the Commission will, in fact, have to do. We feel that if, with the best intentions, the Commission's numbers are expanded on those lines, its effectiveness will be reduced as its numbers are increased. The kind of work which this body will have to do is the kind of work which is more effectively done by a few people. We feel that if it is to include people, however knowledgeable and sensible they may be, brought into represent organisations or bodies or interests which are not relevant to the particular specialised work which this Commission has to do, and on which it has to advise the Board of Trade, that it will detract from, and not add to, the effectiveness of the Commission's work and the character of the advice which it would be able to give to the Government. I would entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Latham, said about the great advantage which a body of this kind would derive from having on it people who were familiar with the work of local authorities if the Commission's duty were to concern itself with any of the functions of the local authorities under this Bill. It is only because the functions of the Commission are, as defined in the Bill, extremely technical and specialised, not being related either to
200
Part II or to Part IV of the Bill, that we hope your Lordships will not press these Amendments.
LORD LATHAM: My submission is that the noble Earl has made the case for these Amendments. If it is proper that there should be representatives of industry and commerce, who, after all, will be required to comply with the standards which the Commission will determine, it surely is also proper that the enforcing bodies, the local authorities, who are the weights and measures authorities, should also be represented. It seems to me there is no answer to that. At present, only one side will be represented, and will determine not only the standards with which the local authorities will be required to comply but also the method by which they are required to comply. Surely, if there are representatives of industry and commerce who will be dealing with matters which are relevant (otherwise they would not be there), representatives of the weights and measures authorities should be on the Commission also.
It is suggested that persons known to the Board of Trade, or appointed by them, will necessarily be better informed as to the day-to-day operation and application of these standards than those technical officers of local authorities who are engaged from day to day in applying them? It seems to me that there is no answer to this submission: otherwise it could be said—I am not saying it, and of course it would not be true or correct—that the Commission was weighted in one respect namely, that those who have to comply with the standards are there to determine them, but those who have to enforce the standards are not.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not want to pursue this argument at unnecessary length, but I think the noble Lord is still arguing on the assumption that the Commission has something to do with the enforcement of this Bill under Part II or Part IV.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM: No.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It has not. It is concerned solely and entirely with advising the Government on what kind of weights and measures we should have; not on how the standards should be enforced.
LORD LATHAM: It is the question of this enforcement that is so important in the practical day-to-day operation. It is no good having the impracticable, for instance, determined as a standard. The people who know which standard is practicable from the point of view of enforcement and application are those who have had the experience; and they are the authorities for weights and measures.
LORD SHEPHERD: May I ask the noble Lord whether he will be good enough to think again about this matter? In the first part of his speech, speaking against our Amendment, he said that this Commission would be special and technical; and of course it is advisory. That surely means that there should be the widest possible knowledge brought to bear on the subject. At the present moment, one can well say that those who will be nominated to the Commission make it rather lopsided towards the man who is there basically on theory, with only three people at present nominated because of their practical experience in industry and commerce. Like my noble friend Lord Latham. I feel that we should bring on to this Commission those who can advise from practical experience. If that is done, the advice of the Commission will be far more worthwhile to the Government.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The local authority would have perfect experience of how to stamp and apply the weights and measures according to law. Certainly they would not have the same kind of practical experience as to the best kind of measures to adopt—for instance, whether we should have a gallon related to the litre, or whether it should be related to the pound. The Commission will have to do most academic work, and to advise. It has nothing to do with the practical enforcement of how goods sold by weights and measures should be bought and sold under this Bill.
LORD SHEPHERD: With due respect to the noble Earl, there are people who would like to bring to this country the metric system. It may be most beneficial in many respects, but practically it is not possible. Therefore, when this Commission is set up to advise the Government on different types of measures, the practical side may not be very carefully considered.
LORD HAWKE: I hope that my noble friend will think again about this point. I rarely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Latham, but this time I think that he has made a case for including the people who can advise on the practical day-to-day application of the weights. I think that perhaps the noble Earl has not had sufficient time to consider the matter carefully, and I believe that on reconsideration he will see the point of the argument.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I will of course reconsider this matter. I will reconsider anything which is reasonably put forward by the Committee. I still feel that my noble friend behind me has not quite appreciated the difference between the administration of this Bill under Parts II, IV and V concerning the local authorities, the traders, the retailers and the purchasers, and the specialised kind of work on which this Commission is engaged, which is simply to advise the Government about the: standards of weights and measures which should be adopted in this country. In reverse circumstances, I would have suggested that my noble friends and noble Lords opposite should also look at their own argument again; but I will do the same with theirs, and I will certainly look at the Government's again.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: In ordinary circumstances, I should be inclined to advise my noble friends to go to a Division on this matter, but the Minister has promised to look at this again. I wish it to be clearly understood that we have fixed views on this matter, and we are not likely to be fobbed off with a refusal to reconsider it quite genuinely at the next stage.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Of course I will consider the matter genuinely. But if the noble Viscount feels that this is a matter that ought to be divided on, I hope he will act in accordance with his views. Because I cannot promise that the result of the reconsideration which I give will be favourable, and I should not like the noble Viscount to advise his noble friends to refrain from a Division on any kind of false understanding.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OR HILLSBOROUGH: I am not going to delay

203
the Committee unnecessarily, nor to cut across the noble Earl's promise to one of his own noble friends to look at this again. In the circumstances, I should not dream of asking my noble friends to divide. But I warn the noble Earl that we shall most certainly go to the Division Lobby on this on the next stage of the Bill unless there is an alteration.
LORD HAWKE: I am glad the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition is not going to divide to-day. I feel that where a Bill of the size and magnitude of this Bill starts in this House, it would be wrong to divide on the Committee stage, because the Government have not had time to consider the arguments of the Committee. If there is to be a Division on anything I hope it will not be at this stage.
LORD MILVERTON: I do not wish to delay the Committee unnecessarily, but as the two Amendments in my name initiated this discussion I should like to say that I remain quite unconvinced by the noble Earl's reply, and am in complete agreement with noble Lords opposite in the view that they have taken of this matter. I do not think this is a suitable moment for a Division, and on the understanding that there will be a serious attempt to reconsider the matter I shall be quite willing to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, and not pursue the second one at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.39 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to add to subsection (2):
"of whom one shall have adequate experience of the organisation of workers".
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment which stands in my name and that of my noble friends. I feel that it is on a somewhat different point from that which has been discussed in the Amendments to which we have just been listening, although, of course, it deals with the membership of the Commission. I appreciate what the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said, in that this is going to be a top-level and extremely technical Commission. It will consist presumably, at least as to six of its members, of scientists, physicists presumably an astral scientist and a great lawyer; and they will be, as it were, experts and not lay-
204
men, considering this matter on a very high plane. On the previous Amendments the proposal—and although I supported it I did not entirely agree with it —was to add three more experts on Weights and measures. The present Amendment, however, deals with those three proposed members of the Commission who are regarded by the Board of Trade as having considerable experience in industry or commerce; and in my view they will be, as it were, lay members of the Commission in so far as expertise on weights and measures is concerned.
The noble Earl said just now that the members of the Commission should not be appointed for reasons having no relevance to the Commission's work. I believe that those were more or less his exact words, or at least a fairly accurate paraphrase of them. It would seem to me that the three lay members of the proposed Commission who have considerable knowledge of industry or commerce have in fact no relevance to the work of the Commission, within the meaning of the noble Earl's words, and therefore he cannot use that argument against the proposal which I am now making in this Amendment: that one of the three members of the Commission who have knowledge of industry or commerce should include one who has adequate experience of "the organisation of workers", which is a phrase commonly used to mean someone who is a member of a trade union—a prominent trade unionist.
It seems to me that Her Majesty's Government are to some extent losing sight of the fact that they have agreed —I think wisely—to include in the membership of the Commission three lay people who have considerable knowledge of business and industry; and that, presumably, means knowledge of the implications of the decisions which will be made by the Commission—the kind of advice it will give to the Board of Trade. That can be the only sound reason—and in my view it is a very sound reason —for including those people in the Commission. Because in the last analysis we must realise that much of the discussion of these six distinguished members of the Commission will be on a plane beyond the understanding of laymen. Nevertheless, ordinary men and women,

205
whether or not they have considerable experience of business, eventually will benefit or suffer from the advice given by these experts. Although I agree that it is very desirable to have these "Three Wise Men" of commerce, I feel it only right that one of them should be, as it were, a workers' representative, because we are rather inclined to lose sight of the fact that weights and units of measure, in their final application, are not concerned only with retail shops or wholesale merchandise warehouses. They are intimately concerned with workers in factories who have to apply them. So that this is not really an academic argument.
We are not having on this occasion the kind of argument that we should have a representative from a wholesalers' or retailers' organisation of the Cooperative Society. We are saying that of these three people who have knowledge of business one should be a workers' representative. Otherwise we might have, for example, the Chairman of Unilever, the Chairman of I.C.I. and the Chairman of Barclays Bank, all of whom have great knowledge of industry or commerce and a very keen interest in, and no doubt extensive knowledge of, weights and units of measurement. But we ought to try to keep this down to earth so far as possible; and therefore we ought to have here a workers' representative. We should have an assurance that is not merely the kind of generalisation mentioned by the noble Earl a little earlier—that it would be a very good thing to include a workers' representative among these three wise people; we ought to have it in the Bill. I feel that the argument for this is really well established and I hope it will be supported by your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 14, at end insert ("of whom one shall have adequate experience of the organisation of workers").—(Lord Stonham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Although my reply to this Amendment on general grounds must be very much the same as my reply to the earlier Amendments, I should like to give a separate reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, since he wished his Amendment to be discussed separately. If he is appealing to me to
206
reconsider my views before a later stage of the Bill, I hope I may also appeal to him to reconsider his view, and to look again at the functions of this Commission as defined in Clause 8 and also as they are foreshadowed in the relevant passage of the Hodgson Report.
The work of the Commission, as the noble Lord will agree, will be predominantly concerned with very scientific and technical matters such as the precise definition of units of measurement and the provision and maintenance of primary standards. But it will also cover questions relating to the need for prescribing new units of measurement for use in trade, and for abolishing existing units which have become obsolete. It is for that reason that Her Majesty's Government feel there is a need for those with knowledge of trade and industry to be included in the membership.
Before we leave this clause may I once again recall what the Commission will not be concerned with. Their terms of reference do not extend to those matters which are dealt with in Part II of the Bill, concerning traders' weighing and measuring equipment or to any questions relating to transactions in goods which are dealt with in Part IV of the Bill and in the Fifth to Ninth Schedules. The work of the Commission, therefore, will not touch upon everyday industrial or commercial activity of the type which might, in other circumstances, justify the establishment of a representational form of advisory body—as I mentioned in regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Latham, reasonably said about the competence of local authorities—reflecting, for example, the interests of businessmen, trade unionists, local authorities and consumers. That is why I feel this Amendment would not be appropriate. The work would be much more "back-room" than this and the type of member needed will be one who has had considerable experience in the matters which fall directly within the Commission's terms of reference.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, gave a number of possible examples of people who might be appointed to the Commission and I am sure that will be very helpful, because the Government have not as yet any fixed ideas about the precise appointments to be made. Purely

207
by way of example, it might at some particular time be useful to appoint a production engineer or manager with expert knowledge of the precision engineering industry, which is much concerned with highly accurate definitions of units; another with experience in the gas industry, if the question of defining a unit of heat measurement was coming under consideration; and another with experience in the field of scientific instruments if international discussions were proceeding about a definition of a unit of time. If we were to lay down that one of the three technical experts from trade and industry must automatically be someone who is expert in the quite different field of industrial relations, that could be as much of an embarrassment to the trade unionist as to the Commission. If a trade unionist is an acknowledged expert in the technical questions coming before the Commission it would surely be better to appoint him for that reason and not for some reason which is not directly concerned with the Commission's terms of reference.
LORD STONHAM: I want to make two points arising out of what the noble Earl has said. The first is that I largely agree with three quarters of his observations. I agree that these six distinguished scientists, or near-scientists, are a highly academic body. But that is not an argument against having any business people in the thing at all. One could make a case against having any business people in and say that this is virtually an astral body; these people are going to work in space, as it were, which nobody else understands, and when they come down from the clouds they will confer their advice on the Board of Trade. However, that is not the argument of the noble Earl. We all agree that it is an excellent thing to have business people on the Commission. Therefore, it is no good developing an argument by saying that this is a high-grade technical body of people, because we have business people on it. My point is that since we are going to have business men on the Commission—I agree with that one of the three business men should be not from the management side, but, as it were, from the workers' side.
If the noble Earl emphasises the fact that to have someone from the quite
208
different field of industrial relationship would be an embarrassment (that is the word he used), then, equally, the chairman of Barclays Bank from the banking field or the chairman of Unilever would be an embarrassment. The point I am making is that one of the three should be one who has had experience of the organisation of workers. I hope that in the thought he is going to give to this matter between now and when we again look at this particular clause he will see this point, and that it is an entirely different matter, and if he looks at it long enough I hope he will see that a case must be made. Of course, we cannot have a gas engineer and all the other kinds of engineer, but we can have someone who is really representative of the workers' side in the matter; and it would not be very difficult to have as that one person someone who, within his experience, not merely knows about organisation but also combines the other technical qualities we hear so much about. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will look at that point. I am sorry that he will not have time to write to me again, because one of the most delightful experiences one can have is when the noble Earl writes to one and exercises his wonderful sense of humour.
LORD DERWENT: I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on this point. I think he has been somewhat misled on what I believe to be rather unsuitable wording concerning what he calls the three business men. I do not think his Amendment would help the Commission, and it we just say "three business men" I do not think that would help the Commission. I want to ask my noble friend Lord Dundee to look at the wording of paragraph (f) again, and to ask whether some such wording as this would not be more appropriate:
"three from among persons appearing to the Board to have a suitable knowledge or appropriate knowledge of industry or commerce".
The business men we want on that Commission are those who have a technical knowledge as regards their own sphere of industry in so far as weights and measures are concerned. I think that simply to have the words
"have a good knowledge of industry or commerce"
is probably not what Her Majesty's Government mean; and I suggest that the

209
word "good" should be altered to something else.
LORD LATHAM: Before the noble Earl answers that point, could I put another question which is rather a supplementary question? What functions of the Council, advice or otherwise, is it expected by the Board of Trade will be given by these three representatives of industry and commerce? What special knowledge or experience is it anticipated that they will bring?
LORD HAWKE: I find it rather difficult from reading the Bill to discover what function, if any, this Commission have to give on the question of coinage and the denominations. Have they any?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No; only on weights and measures. But it would be easier for me to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Latham, if I knew whom the Commission were going to appoint.
LORD LATHAM: The Board must determine what advice they want before they look around for the persons to give it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Then let me give a general answer. As the Commission will have to cover questions relating to the need for prescribing new units of measurement for use in trade or for abolishing existing units which have become obsolete, it is considered that they will benefit from membership of those with knowledge of trade and industry if these are included in the membership. I quite take the point of my noble friend Lord Derwent.
LORD SILKIN: Before the noble Earl leaves this point, I should like to put a question as a matter of information. One of the functions of this Commission will be to deal with what he described as units of measurement. Would they, for instance, deal with the question of whether or not 42 lb. of coal is a suitable unit of measurement? Would that be the kind of thing, among others, that they would deal with? The Bill provides that a proper unit is, I think—7, 14, 28, 42, and so on, pounds of coal. Would this Commission be considering whether we shold continue using a 42 lb. weight of coal? I take that as an example. If that were so, then that is essentially the kind of
210
thing upon which a person of the character which is the subject of this Amendment would be most competent to advise us. Indeed, the person who could best advise on that is the housewife or the consumer, the person who is in fact dealing with this kind of thing. I should be grateful if the noble Earl could look at that point.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I will look at the point that has just been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I do not think the Commission would have to recommend anything relevant to the enforcement or application of the Act under Part IV but only—I quote from Clause 8, which describes the Commission's functions:
"as to the method by which the values of standards of the weights lawful for use for trade should be derived from the United Kingdom primary standards of the pound and the kilogram".
But I will consider the question which Lord Silkin has just asked. I do not know whether the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Derwent for the amendment of paragraph (f) on the previous page would cause the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to alter his views. Very likely it would not. But I quite take the point. If there is some idea that the three persons appointed under paragraph (f) are just three business men appointed to represent business, that, of course, is not the case at all. I have tried to describe to the Committee the purpose of their being appointed, which the Committee will know already from the Hodgson report. But I certainly take the point which is made by my noble friend Lord Derwent on this matter.
LORD STONHAM: I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, was referring to paragraph (f) of subsection (2) on page 7.
LORD DERWENT: I was suggesting that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, had perhaps been misled by the paragraph which is on page 7.
LORD STONHAM: I agree that the words suggested by the noble Lord would be much better, but they still would not meet the point I am making. Even if these persons are not merely those who have a good knowledge of industry and commerce but those who have such knowledge that would be useful to a

211
Commission of this kind, I still think we should lay it down as a principle that one of the three should be a workers' representative. I cannot see why the Government should have any difficulty whatever in accepting that as a principle.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Functions of Commission
8.—(1)
(2) Without prejudice to any power to make orders or regulations conferred on the Board by any other provision of this Act, the Board may, if they think fit in the case of any recommendation of the commission, by order make such provision as appears to the Board to be necessary to give effect to that recommendation, and any such order may amend, extend or repeal any provision of this Act or any instrument made thereunder:
Provided that provision shall not be made by order under this subsection for the exclusion from use for trade of imperial in favour of metric units of measurement, weights and measures.
4.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN moved, in the proviso to subsection (2), after the first "the" [exclusion] to insert "general". The noble Viscount said: I am in a quandary here, because Amendment No. 11 is consequential to Amendment No. 12.
LORD LATHAM: That is the result of the Commission!
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: With your Lordships' permission, in the unlikely event of Amendment No. 12 being accepted, we will sort it out then. So may I, with your Lordships' permission, talk on both together, and we shall see what happens? I know the wording of this Amendment is quite unsuitable, but the object of putting it down was to give Her Majesty's Government the opportunity, if they so wished, to explain a little more their intentions and feelings regarding the adoption by this country of the metric system at some future date. During the Second Reading debate, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said, among other things [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 226 (No. 11), col. 744]:
"The Departmental Committee to which I have already referred, known as the Hodgson Committee, were in favour of the metric
212
system, but they recommended that the right moment for Britain to adopt it would be when it was also adopted by the United States and Canada."
Now I am not quite sure of my dates, but I should like to draw attention to the "Sixes and Sevens" we are at with Europe at the present moment, and also to the fact that, if we want to go into the European market, which is on a metric system of weights and measures, the change to a metric system might have a little more significance to us than to America and Canada. In the opinion of many persons connected with science, technology and commerce, the noble Earl's statement does not really go far enough; and, as a member of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, it was suggested to me that I might put down an Amendment in order to get, if possible, a clarification of this point.
I am informed that the proviso in Clause 8, subsection (2), as it stands makes it impossible for the metric system to be introduced into this country, even for some particular section of trade or industry, without entirely new legislation. I am informed that that is so: I do not really know, but I am told so. It appears to me that it will take a very long time indeed to switch over to the metric system (and there are certain sections of industry—and I emphasise the word "sections"—which consider it will be very advantageous) and there are a great many complications that may arise. The sort of problem that comes to mind is: what happens to all the accounting machines computers, and various things of that sort? There is also the additional expense involved in running two systems. The intention of my Amendment is to make it possible for Her Majesty's Government, with suitable safeguards, which probably are not in the Amendment but which could be put in, to have, with the complete agreement of a section of industry, a "dummy run", as one might say, in that one particular industry only. In that way, one would not have to wait for fresh legislation (and we all know how long that means), and one would thereby not deny oneself the opportunity of gaining a great deal of experience before framing that legislation. But the chief object is to hear from the noble Lord a little more of how Her Majesty's Government really feel, about possibly a

213
limited introduction of the metric system in certain sections of industry. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 45, after ("the") insert ("general ").—(Viscount Stonehaven.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): May I say that in this case, as no doubt in many others, it will probably be convenient to the Committee to discuss the two Amendments together. There are several occasions in this Bill when I think that will be the case; nevertheless, it is proper for me to call only one Amendment at a time.
LORD HAWKE: Some of us who are members of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee are less scientific than others, and I am afraid I am not very scientific, but it would appear that my noble friend's Amendment has reference to subsection (1) (d), and I wonder whether my noble friend who is going to reply could at the same time tell us exactly what subsection (1) (d) means, because I find it very difficult to understand.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Dealing first with Lord Stonehaven's Amendment and Amendment No. 12, I would say that the short effect of these two Amendments would be to modify the prohibition imposed on the Board of Trade by the proviso to subsection (2) of Clause 8 against making an order under that subsection excluding the imperial system from use for trade in favour of the metric system. The short answer to that is that, in general, the Government regard any compulsory changeover to the metric system as something which could be done only as part of a general plan, or that, at any rate, it should be the subject of separate legislation.
Except in the food industry, in which traders are required to pre-pack some articles in certain imperial weights and to mark other articles in similar terms, all industries are free to adopt the metric system if they so desire. It was my noble friend's understanding, I think, that this was not so. One industry, the pharmaceutical industry, has in fact done this in recent years. There is nothing in this clause as it is at present drafted to prevent the Commission from examining the problem in relation to any industry
214
and the essence of the Amendments is, in fact, contained in the proposed extension of the powers of the Board of Trade. If there were unanimous agreement in any industry, or any section of industry, that industry could change over voluntarily if it so wished. Where, on the other hand, there was general agreement but one or two firms stood out against it, they might have good reasons for standing out. For example, they might be using the same plant for products which were regarded as appropriate to another industry, and thereby find themselves required to duplicate unnecessarily all their weighing and measuring equipment. I hope that I have cleared my noble friend's mind and have satisfied him that, in fact, it is possible, once a degree of unanimity is achieved, for industries, or a section of industry, to do what he wishes them to be free to do.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Hawke, I would say that paragraph (d) is concerned with the highly technical calculations that need to be made to define one weight in terms of another, having regard to conditions of atmospheric pressure, temperature and so on. I would ask my noble friend to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I shall be very happy to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment provides for the Commission to continue in existence even if its membership should fall below the normal and maximum figure of nine—for example, because of the death or resignation of one or more of its members. In practice, of course, every effort will be made to avoid temporary gaps in membership, or any kind of irregularity in their appointment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 10, at end insert—
("() The commission may perform any of their functions under this section notwithstanding any vacancy for the time being in the number of the members thereof or any irregularity in the appointment of any person to be a member thereof.")—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Meaning of "use for trade"]:
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment should be taken together with Amendment No. 17, at page 9, line 19. The two Amendments together do not involve any change of substance, but are intended solely to clarify the drafting of this clause, which gives the meaning of "use for trade" and which thus governs the general scope of the whole of Part II of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 14, leave out from ("Britain") to end of line and insert ("with a view to a"). —(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILVERTON: Clause 9 prescribes the unit of measurement of weighing and measuring equipment to which the new legislation will apply—that is, units and equipment used for trade. The definition of "use for trade" in Clause 9 (1) is a new definition and it seems to be incomplete in that paragraph (b) refers to
"the making of a payment in respect of any toll or duty,"
but does not refer to payments in respect of a service performed or in respect of work done. The addition of the word "service" would, it is suggested, widen the application of the proposed new legislation. The Committee on Weights and Measures legislation, in paragraph 141 of their Report, expressed the view that it is desirable to enlarge the definition of "trade" so as to reinforce the present control of weighing and measuring equipment generally. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 18, after ("any") insert ("service").—(Lord Milverton.)
LORD LATHAM: I and my noble friend Lord Silkin have an Amendment down seeking the same purpose and almost in the same terms, and it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I speak now on that Amendment, although I appreciate that it cannot yet be put. The purpose of both Amendments is to make quite sure that the provisions of the Act comprehend all uses, including services. This is perhaps one of the most important clauses in the Bill, because it defines the scope and application of many of the other clauses and
216
will be dependent upon the definition of the words "use for rade".
Although the definition as drafted appears to be comprehensive, some doubts exist in regard to wages or bonuses paid on the basis of one or other of the terms of measurement mentioned in the clause. The object of this Amendment is to remove these doubts with regard to such equipment as personal weighing machines, grading-by-weight machines, and similar equipment, by making it clear that the definition not only covers transactions for the making of payments in respects of tolls or duties, but also covers payments for the provision of services such as those provided by such equipment. I hope that we may be ad idem with the Government in the joint purpose of making the terms of this clause, and also the application of these subsequent provisions, free from any doubt—with no holes in the net, as it were—and ensuring that all the infinite possibilities of modern civilisation are reasonably covered. I therefore beg to support the Amendment of Lord Milverton, and I shall in due course move the Amendment standing in the name of Lord Silkin and myself.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I think there is a misapprehension about this matter. I should have thought that "services" were covered by paragraph (a), of subsection (1), which says:
"the transferring or rendering of money or money's worth…"
Services for value are worth money, and therefore presumably fall within paragraph (a). It seems to me that it would be a pity to insert any reference to them in paragraph (b). As the clause is drafted at present, it appears to make a distinction, which is perfectly sound, between transactions in which value is given for value, and those—such as taxes, tolls or duties—in which there is an imposition upon the unwilling citizen and not an exchange of value for value. I do not remember if this distinction has been mentioned before in the Statute, but it is one of which the taxpayer, at any rate, is starkly conscious, and I should be very sorry to see a distinction between the two classes of transactions blurred in any way.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The minds of the noble Lords, Lord Milverton and

217
Lord Latham, appear on more than one occasion to think alike. I have not been too successful on earlier parts of the Bill in persuading the noble Lords that the words in the Bill mean what I think they mean, but I hope that on this occasion I may be able to give the noble Lords the assurance for which they ask as to its meaning. This clause provides that:
"use for trade means"—
in certain circumstances—
"use in Great Britain for or in connection with any transaction for—

(a) the transferring or rendering of money or money's worth in consideration of money o: money's worth; or

(b) the making of a payment in respect of any toll or duty••"

The Amendment, in order to clarify the meaning of those words, seeks to cover the making of a payment in respect of any service. If the service involves the transferring or rendering of money or money's worth in consideration of money or money's worth, then I think, as the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, suggested, it is no doubt fully covered already by paragraph (a). I would suggest to your Lordships that it would only throw doubt on the scope of paragraph (a) to make specific provision in paragraph (b) for such services. For example, if weighing and measuring equipment is used to determine payment for;abour, that weighing and measuring equipment will be in use for trade under paragraph (a) and it will have to be tested and stamped by an inspector. If a charge is made for the use of personal weighing machines, those machines will also be in use for trade. I think that Clause 18 makes it clear that personal weighing machines are to be regarded as in use 17or trade, whether or not a charge is made for their use. I hope that this will give noble Lords the assurance for which they ask.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM had given notice of his intention to move in subsection (1) (b) after "toll" to insert "services". The noble Lord said: I am not quite convinced that the point is really met by what the noble Earl said. I do not want to be pernickety, but it is important that there should be no doubt whatsoever. I am not yet convinced that wages will come within the ambit of the
218
clause. I am prepared not to move my Amendment, but I should like the noble Earl to raise the point again with the Department with the intention of making it beyond peradventure that wages, bonuses and the other things which I indicated would fall within the term "use for trade".
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 19, leave out from (" transaction ") to (" for ") in line 22 and- insert—
" (i) for the purposes of which there is made a determination of quantity in terms of measurement of length, area, volume capacity or weight or by number and which is made by reference to the quantity determined; or
(ii) for the purposes of which a statement of quantity in such terms is made or implied,
other than a determination or statement "(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10:
Units of measurement, weights and measures lawful for use for trade
10.—(1) No person shall—
(a) use for trade any unit of measurement of length, area, volume, capacity, mass or weight which is not included in the First Schedule to this Act;
4.22 p.m.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved in subsection (1), to add to paragraph (a):
" except that where the approved measuring equipment includes a monetary computing device as mentioned in section 12 (1) and where a customer specifically requests that the equipment be stopped other than on an exact unit of measurement, then a charge may be made in accordance with the monetary total shown on the price computer."
The noble Lord said: This is the first of a series of Amendments I have put down dealing with the same subject. Price computer petrol pumps are in fairly general use and have been for some time, and the public have got into the habit. very useful for them, of ordering petrol without referring to gallonage. They say either, "put in 10s. worth", or, more commonly, "fill up my tank". The result in either case is often not an exact number of marked gallons, and what is shown on the computer pump is the price. This has the additional advantage that -people who are not good at

219
mathematics and after taking five gallons cannot multiply 4s. 9d. by five, see the price on the pump. I am advised that under Clause 10 (1) (a) of the Bill as now drafted, this practice will be prohibited, as the petrol sold will not be a unit of volume included in the First Schedule. Apart from anything my noble friend may have to say about drafting, I take it that the principle that these computers should be allowed is agreed, because they have been in use so long that if there had been anything against them it would have been brought up before now. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 34, after "Act" insert the said new words.—(Lord Derwent.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My noble friend says that he has been advised that paragraph (a) of subsection (1) would restrict the practice which he has described and which in many cases may be convenient to customers. I should like to try to go into this briefly in the hope of being able to help my noble friend. The paragraph in question restricts the units which may be used for trade to those listed in the First Schedule, and included in the list of imperial units set out in Part IV of that Schedule are the gallon, quart and pint. These are the units commonly used in the sale of petrol and oil, and all liquid fuel measuring instruments hitherto approved by the Board of Trade for use for trade indicate measurement in terms of one or the other of these units. In some cases, the measuring equipment also indicates the price per gallon, and, by means of computing mechanism, the total price of the quantity measured, at whatever point the instrument is stopped. The motorist has to take half a gallon to begin with, the presumption being that he would not fill up if he wanted less; but after that, the flowmeter stops at any fraction of a gallon.
In moving this Amendment, my noble friends may be assuming that, where a delivery from a flowmeter is stopped at a point where the indicators are not showing that an exact number of gallons or half gallons have been delivered, the delivery is being made not by capacity measurement, but by price. This is not the case, since the liquid delivered has
220
been measured by the meter in exactly the same way as an exact number of gallons would have been measured. If, however, my noble friend's Amendments to page 12, line 42, and page 23, line 22, are seeking to ensure that flowmeters used for selling petrol by the 10s. or £1 worth should not show the quantity being sold but only the price of the petrol supplied and the price per gallon, this raises a question of considerable importance. It amounts to the new principle that goods required to be sold by weight or measure should be regarded or so sold, even if the transaction takes place without the weight or measure being determined or stated.
LORD DERWENT: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend but I have not found where he says I am seeking that.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not know whether my noble friend wanted to associate this Amendment with the Amendments Nos. 25 and 51, to which I thought he referred, or whether they are quite different paints.
LORD DERWENT: No, they are indeed the same point, but, unless I misread my own Amendments, I do not see where it says that the pump should show the price only.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Then that is all right; I have misunderstood the purpose of the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: My Amendment says, where the equipment "includes a monetary computing device". That does not mean a different device by itself, but includes it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am grateful to my noble friend for making that clear. If a flowmeter which shows the purchaser the quantity of petrol supplied, the price chargeable or the price per unit is used, it should measure the price and quantity at the same time. It may be convenient for the customer to see the price, but he must also be assured that he is getting the right quantity. What is involved for the ordinary consumer is not the assurance that the sale of petrol should be by measure and the giving of short measure an offence, but - provision for a departure from present trading practices which enables the trader to give much less information, indeed

221
the vital information about quantity, than is normally given now. If my noble friend does not intend to put that point of view, then I do not think that there is much difference between us.
But under the arrangement which I think might result from the noble Lord's Amendment, the consumer could find out the quantity supplied only by working out a fairly complicated sum—say, the number of times 4s. 8½ goes into Eland as the noble Lord said, you cannot always do a sum like that in your head very quickly. It seems to me that the effect of the Amendment might be more likely that the consumer would have to do a sum of that kind if he wanted to be sure of the amount of petrol he was getting. The paragraph we are discussing deals only with units of measurement and is not concerned with measuring equipment, but I am taking it with the subsequent Amendments to which my noble friend referred.
LORD DERWENT: If I understand my noble friend aright—and I think I do—he has taken advice and he is satisfied that the flowmeters, which have both price and volume, are, and will remain under this legislation, quite legal, and when it comes to testing the machine (I refer now to a later Amendment that I have down) the money side of it will be checked by an inspector with the volume side and the whole thing will be in order. If it is the case that it will continue to be legal, and any checking will continue to be legal, and both sides of the instrument will be checked, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am glad that matter has been cleared up, because I think it will save time not only now but also on the later Amendments to which my noble friend referred.
LORD DERWENT: I am grateful to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Metric carat weights are commonly used in conjunction with transactions in pearls, but pearls are not covered by the term precious stones to which the use of the metric carat is restricted by subsection (2) of Clause 10 as drafted. The Amendment rectifies this omission. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 10, after ("stones") insert ("or pearls").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Under the second part of subsection (3) of this clause as drafted, pharmacists would be prevented from using any weights and measures other than apothecaries or metric, and this would have the effect that when an order under subsection (6) is made abolishing apothecaries weights and measures, they would be compelled to use only metric weights and measures for the sale of drugs. Many articles used as medicines, for example, sodium bicarbonate, are commonly sold by avoirdupois weight, and it is not the intention to interfere with this practice. This Amendment, therefore, will mean that under the provisions of subsection (3), apothecaries weights and measures will be permitted to be used only for the sale of drugs, but pharmacists will not be debarred from using other weights and measures for this purpose except troy and metric carat weights, which, by virtue of subsection (2) are themselves reserved for special purposes. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 18, leave out from ("drugs") to end of line 21.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: As this subsection is at present drafted, it could be construed as permitting the abolition of only those apothecaries weights and measures described in terms of the units specifically mentioned in the subsection, namely, in terms of the ounce apothecaries, the drachm, the scruple, the fluid drachm and the minim. This is not our intention. It is intended to take power also to abolish those described in terms of the grain, namely, the 6 grain and 4 grain weights specified in paragraph 3 of Part V of the Third Schedule. The Amendment removes this ambiguity. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 37, leave out from ("to") to ("that") in line 38 and insert ("apothecaries weight or measure").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It is the Government's policy, as your Lordships will

223
have seen from the Bill, ultimately to abolish the use of the apothecaries system of weighing and measuring. As the subsection which does this—that is, subsection (6) of Clause 10 of the Bill—is drafted, it would enable the Board to make an Order abolishing some apothecaries weights at one time and others later, and to do the same for apothecaries measures. This is not our intention. We do not necessarily mean to abolish the weights and the measures at the same time, but we intend to abolish each class all at once. Very likely the weights will be abolished before the measures, but it is the intention that all the weights should be abolished at one time and all the measures at another, probably later. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 6, leave out ("respectively appoint") and insert ("appoint, and different days may be appointed with respect to such of those provisions as relate to apothecaries weight and apothecaries measure respectively.")—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Weighing or measuring equipment for use for trade]:
LORD WOLVERTON: The object of this Amendment is to give the public more protection under the Bill. This clause deals with the important matter of the inspection of apparatus for weighing and measuring. Under subsection (2) of this clause the inspector, if he is satisfied with the machine, is required to stamp it with the prescribed stamp and to keep a record of every test carried out by him. I am advised by local authorities on which I have the honour to sit that it is the usual practice in local authorities for each inspector to have his own number, and the object of this Amendment, further to protect the public, is to make it obligatory to put in the identity of the inspector, so that the work can be identified by the public if there is any dispute. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 1, after ("stamp") insert:
("in such a manner as to enable the identity of the inspector applying the said stamp to be ascertained;")—(Lord Wolverton.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: My noble friend has made quite clear his purpose in moving this Amendment, and in fact the current regulations, as he intimated, require inspectors to be provided with adequate implements for affixing the local verification stamp
"the design and number of which are furnished by the Board of Trade".
In fact nearly all inspectors are provided with different stamp numbers, and these are incorporated in the stamps they use, so permitting ready identification of the person stamping, any piece of equipment. The Board of Trade propose to fallow the same procedure under the new regulations which they will be making under this subsection in which the design of the stamp to be used by inspectors will include a number personal to each inspector. The Government do not think it is necessary, therefore, to provide for this expressly in the Bill, and I hope that I have brought my noble friend round to the same opinion.
LORD WOLVERTON: As I understand it, a regulation will be made under the general power of making regulations. If that is the case, I am quite satisfied, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.40 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: This Amendment deals with a slightly different point. As the Bill is now drafted, the inspector is not to be asked to stamp an article which is too small to be stamped. I am credibly informed that an article with a surface of less than one-eighth of an inch is too small to be stamped, and it is thought that it would be advisable to put in these words to make quite clear what is the lowest size of apparatus that can be stamped. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 10, leave out ("is too small to be stamped or marked in accordance with those requirements") and insert ("does not have a surface area of at least one-eighth of an inch square upon which the stamp or mark could be placed").—(Lord Wolverton.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: My noble friend has quite rightly said that some of the weights and measures which will be lawful for use of the trade are, and will be, exceedingly small. The smallest weight is one-hundredth of a grain,

225
which will be equal to only one seven hundred thousandth of a pound. Such weights as these are, of course, made of light material, usually aluminium or aluminium alloy, in the form of very thin wire. The wire is bent into shapes which make clear the purported value of the weights, but it is impossible to mark their value on them or for the inspector to stamp them. Sometimes, particularly in the case of milligram weights, weights are made of thin sheet metal, and it is presumably those which the noble Lord had in mind when he tabled his Amendment. In the Government's view, it is quite unnecessary to stipulate a minimum size below which an inspector need not stamp them, and in the case of wire weights, which can be quite large and have an overall surface area of more than one-eighth of an inch, it would be positively impracticable. Inspectors have used their discretion in this matter for many years, apparently without cause for complaint, and the Government think it is reasonable that they should continue to do so.
LORD WOLVERTON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question: Whether Clause 11 stand part of the Bill?
LORD DERWENT: May I say one word on the Motion that Clause 11 stand part? May I refer my noble friend to page 11 of the Bill, lines 38 and 39. The words I refer to are:
"…the appropriate local or working standards and testing equipment…"
I wonder whether my noble friend can give any undertaking at this stage, or perhaps at a later stage, that methods and equipment at present in use in the oil industry, such as flow meters, proving tanks and twin bottle calibration machines, will continue to be permissible as appropriate local or working standards under this subsection? The things I refer to are permissible now, but may One assume that they will still be permissible under this wording?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I should like to consider that point. I am grateful to my noble friend for having raised it.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Approved patterns of equipment for use for trade]:
LORD SILKIN: moved, in subsection (3), after "question" to insert:
"or sells or otherwise disposes of any such equipment unless previously broken up for scrap".
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. I do so in order to get clarification from the noble Earl as to whether the particular point I have in mind is satisfactorily covered. The point is that this clause deals with the approval of patterns of equipment, and subsection (3) deals with cases where these approvals have been revoked. It forbids any person in possession of equipment for which authorisation has been withdrawn to use it for trade, or to have it in his possession for such use, or to cause or permit any other person so to use it. The question that seems to me to require some explanation is whether such a person is enabled to sell it to somebody else without necessarily informing him that the authorisation has been revoked. Obviously, if he did inform him it would be no use to the purchaser, because he could not use it. But supposing a man has a piece of equipment and omits to the purchaser that the certificate has been revoked, is he committing, an offence under this Bill? Should not something be inserted in this clause so that this practice could be prohibited? This, is a matter about which a number of local authorities have informed me they feel rather strongly. I should be grateful for the noble Earl's explanation. The same point applies to the next clause, and I shall not move my next Amendment if I receive a satisfactory explanation to this one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved —
Page 13, line 35, after ("question") insert the said words.—(Lord Silkin.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I did not see this Amendment until this morning, and I take it from what the noble Lord says that his next Amendment, 25B, is consequential upon it, or on the same point.
LORD SILKIN: It is on the same point.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The arguments are the same. The subsection with which the Amendment is concerned

227
empowers the Board of Trade, after consultation with such persons appearing to them to be interested, to revoke any certificate or authorisation granted under the clause, and it then goes on to make it an offence for anyone knowing that a certificate or authorisation has been revoked to use for trade any equipment of the pattern concerned. The noble Lord's Amendment would also make it an offence for anyone to sell or dispose of such equipment unless it had previously been broken up for scrap.
I appreciate that the object of the noble Lord's Amendment is to prevent equipment for which a certificate or authorisation has been revoked from being sold dishonestly by some trader, who knows that he is no longer allowed to use it for trade, to another trader without mentioning it. The Amendment would, however, I think, prevent a number of other kinds of perfectly sensible and legitimate transactions. For example, the certificates and authorisations referred to include certificates which permit equipment of the pattern concerned to be used for limited purposes. The Amendment might have the effect of preventing the sale of an article made in accordance with that pattern which was suitable for some use other than that referred to in the revoked certificate. It might also prevent the sale of such equipment for non-trade uses where it might be suitable. Again, it might prevent the sale of a piece of equipment where it was known that a modification would be likely to be approved in the near future making it suitable for use by a purchaser, although it was unsuitable for the current owner. It might also prevent the sale of equipment which the seller was himself unable or unwilling to break up to a dealer for scrap to be sold to another expert firm for reclamation of useful parts.
I should be glad to consider or discuss proposals for doing something about sales which are objectionable, while at the same time avoiding these difficulties. It is possible that an effective provision, limited to the cases in which an outright prohibition would be appropriate, might be unduly tortuous and complicated. But I entirely approve of the noble Lord's object in preventing disingenuous sales of this kind, and I should be glad
228
to discuss with him any means of giving effect to that aim so long as it would not have the effect of making illegal what are perfectly legitimate transactions.
LORD SILKIN: I am very much obliged for that answer, which is rather what I expected. I felt that my Amendment went rather far, although it is designed for a specific purpose. I am very happy to accept the statement of the noble Earl, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [General specifications of equipment for use for trade]:
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved in subsection (5), to leave out "that other" and insert "either". The noble Lord said: In rising to propose this Amendment, may I also, with the permission of the Committee, refer to Amendments 27, 30 and 31, which cover the same point. Subsection (5) of Clause 13 provides that:
"If any difference arises between an inspector and any other person as to the interpretation of any specification prescribed under this section, or as to whether or not any weighing or measuring equipment conforms with such a specification, that difference may with the consent of that other person, and shall at the request of that other person, be referred to the Board, whose decision shall be final."
Subsection (2) of Clause 14 makes a like provision in the case of a difference over interpretation of any regulations or difference as to the method of testing any weighing or measuring equipment. These provisions should, it is suggested, be applied equally between the two parties. The way the subsections are drawn precludes a dispute from being so referred without the consent of that other party, and that party can therefore prevent the reference of any dispute. It is suggested that it would be reasonable to give the inspector of weights and measures an equal standing for settlement of any differences in this manner, without forcing him sometimes to the alternative course of prosecution in court. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 39, leave out ("that other") and insert ("either")—(Lord Milverton.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: My noble friend has explained the purpose of his Amendments very clearly, and I am happy to say that, on reflection, the Government feel that there is a good case for giving the inspector the right to refer the dispute, if necessary without consent of the other person. If there is in fact a dispute it seems sensible to have a final decision made upon it if either party so wishes. As this is clearly the object of the two Amendments proposed by my noble friend, the Government can readily accept the Amendment in principle. But it is doubtful if as at present drafted it achieves the desired effect without some ambiguity. If, therefore, my noble friend would be good enough to withdraw his Amendment I will look at it and produce the necessary Amendment at the next stage.
LORD HAWKE: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, I would ask my noble friend on the Front Bench whether, if the Government accept this Amendment in principle, this will mean that the other person there referred to can, against his will, be dragged to the Board, whose decision shall be final, and be precluded from getting a decision of the courts if he feels that he might be more favourably treated in the courts than by the Board of Trade.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I do not think I can give my noble friend a final answer on that now. What I understand is that this enables either of the two parties to refer the matter to the Board of Trade. I do not think it excludes either of them from further recourse to any court beyond the Board of Trade if both parties are not satisfied.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: If that is so, what is; the meaning of the words, "whose decision shall be final"?
LORD ST. OSWALD: I gave an "off the cuff" answer. It may well be I am wrong. I said I could not give a final answer, and it may well he I have unwittingly and unintentionally misled the House on this point. I hope the House will be good enough to allow me to let this question bide for the moment until I can give a mare satisfactory answer.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I want to be quite clear. What the noble Lord has said is that
230
the Government accepts the Amendment in principle. I am not quite clear where we stand if it is withdrawn at this stage. The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, is of very great importance.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, was not really relevant to the Amendment, in that neither of the two parties would have recourse to the courts in any case. I am sorry I did in fact mislead the House, due to my wish to answer rather than deflect the question, but in point of fact neither party has access to the court over a point like this, and this Amendment is purely relevant to their right of approach to the Board of Trade.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should like to know at what point a citizen is denied access to the courts. One always needs to watch carefully legislation of this character. I should like to think it over in the meantime before the next stage. I think we must safeguard citizens' rights.
LORD SPENS: Under subsection (4) a legal offence can be committed, and I would suggest that it is impossible to say that a decision by the Board of Trade can be final and binding and create a legal offence on which a subject can be prosecuted. I think the Government will have to consider very carefully the wording of the clause and make it quite clear that any application to the Board of Trade certainly does not preclude a decision adverse to the subject from being taken to the court for final decision.
LORD MILVERTON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
Regulations with respect to equipment used for trade and tare weight
14.—(1) The Board may make regulations with respect to—

(a) the materials and principles of construction of weighing or measuring equipment for use for trade;

(b) the inspection, testing, passing as fit for use for trade and stamping of such equipment, including—

(i) the prohibition of the stamping of such equipment in such circumstances as may be specified in the regulations;
4.58 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved, in subsection (1) (b), after "including" to insert:
"the fees to be paid for inspection, testing, and stamping, and".
The noble Lord said: In rising to move this Amendment, I should like to give the following reasons which are at the back of it. The cost of the weights and measures service of a local authority is met out of local rates, and the receipts of local authorities from the administration of the service derive from the charges made for the verification of weights and measures and weighing and measuring equipment. Verification and stamping fees have hitherto been fixed by the Board of Trade and prescribed by order, and local authorities have been required to charge these fees and no others. Presumably it is intended that fees should be paid to weights and measures authorities for work to be carried out by their inspectors in connection with the inspection, testing, passing as fit for use for trade, and stamping of weighing or measuring equipment for use for trade. But there does not appear to be any express provision in the Bill which would enable local weights and measures authorities to charge fees.
This Amendment would enable the Board of Trade to prescribe by regulations fees which could be charged by such authorities for this service. I suggest that these are legitimate charges to traders for a special service and that they should cover the costs of verification. The Committee on Weights and Measures Legislation, in paragraph 430 of their Report, favoured this view, and recommended that the Board of Trade should be required under any new legislation to fix fees from time to time after consultation with all the interests concerned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 45, after ("including") insert the said words. (Lord Milverton.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: This Amendment seeks to add to paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the clause a power which already exists under subsection (2) of Clause 11. The latter subsection provides that a person requiring weighing or measuring equipment to be passed as
232
fit for use for trade is to submit it to an inspector for testing, subject among other things, to the payment of the prescribed fee. The word "prescribed" is clearly defined in subsection (1) of Clause 59 of the Bill as meaning prescribed by the Board by regulations, and the Amendment therefore seems to us to be unnecessary. On those grounds, I would ask my noble friend to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MILVERTON: I thank the noble Lord for pointing that out and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DERWENT: In the checking of new petrol pumps and pumps that have been rechecked, there are at present certain tolerances allowed which have been found necessary. The point of this Amendment is that under this Bill the Board of Trade should have power to make regulations to continue these tolerances. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 13, at end insert—
("() the margins of variation, if any. permissible in respect of permissible types of weighing or measuring equipment used for trade").—(Lord Dement.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: My noble friend's Amendment seeks to give the Board of Trade the power, which they have under existing legislation, to make regulations with respect to the permissible limits of error in particular types of weighing and measuring equipment. This power is, however, already conferred upon the Board in an earlier part of the Bill—namely, by the words "the prescribed limits of error" in subsection (2) of Clause 11, page 11, line 40. The interpretation which Clause 59 assigns to the word "prescribed" wherever it occurs in the Bill is "prescribed by the Board by regulations". The present Amendment is therefore unnecessary, and I would ask my noble friend to be so good as to withdraw it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I do not know whether the noble Lord is rising to withdraw his Amendment, so perhaps I had better rise now, if he will allow me. When the noble Lord who moved the Amendment spoke of supplies and the like to petrol

233
pumps and things of that kind being the tare weight, and so on, I was interested because of the future development and measurements of large tanker type vehicles. This is not only an interesting matter, but it is something which is expanding and is not going to be confined only to oil substances. Already in Scotland there is an enormous development rather on these lines, but of a more voluntary nature, by the Milk Marketing Board for the collection of milk from farms. I am not certain how the farmer can always be sure that he is going to get the full volume value of the milk which he so despatches, or how it is measured. This question of the actual method of how it is done might be given consideration when the Government are giving special consideration to this matter. Even if, on a further examination of what the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, has said, we think it is covered in the earlier part of the Bill, still I should at some time, perhaps on Third Reading, like to have a little discourse with the Government to see exactly how they manage these things.
LORD DERWENT: In view of what the noble Viscount has said, may I point out to Her Majesty's Government at this stage—I do not know whether it is in order—that when they come to this discussion which the noble Viscount has mentioned, the question will arise in many cases of whether the amount delivered is the weight before delivery or the weight after. I hope they will bear in mind that sometimes some of the regulations in this Bill may prove somewhat difficult, because things like bitumen and grease and oil cannot be emptied entirely from the container. But that is for further discussion. With regard to my own Amendment, I have found out what I wanted to find out: that the point about which I was doubtful is in fact covered by the Bill. I am grateful to my noble friend for telling me so, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Offences in connection with stamping of equipment]:
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved, in the proviso to subsection (1), after "manufacturer" to insert "or repairer". The
234
noble Lord said: The proviso to Clause 15 (1) permits the
"obliteration of any stamp, plug or seal by a manufacturer of weighing or measuring equipment or his duly authorised agent,"
but it omits these powers when work is carried out by a repairer or an adjuster of weighing or measuring equipment. Generally, it would be the repairer or adjuster who would be most likely to need power to obliterate a stamp, plug or seal, and that is the reason for this Amendment. It might be that the repairer obliterated it by accident, or, indeed, it might be an inevitable consequence of the repair work. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 6, after ("manufacturer") insert ("or repairer").—(Lord Milverton.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The object of the noble Lord's Amendment is to extend the exemption accorded by Clause 15 at the end of subsection (1) at the top of page 16 to people who repair scales and who cannot be called manufacturers of weighing or measuring equipment. or even agents of such manufacturers. The Government agree in principle that firms carrying on a business of repairing weighing and measuring equipment, and who do a necessary and extensive service in adjusting weights and equipment, ought to be protected in the same way as manufacturers who have a wider function. As it is drafted at present, I think this Amendment goes a little too wide because it would exonerate an owner of a scale who did his own work, and that would not seem to be desirable. The Government will consider putting down a suitable Amendment at a later stage, either in this House or in another place, to give effect to the purpose of the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD MILVERTON: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his reply, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment is designed to make it clear that anybody who offers for sale any weighing or measuring equipment which to his knowledge bears a forged or counterfeit stamp or is false or unjust. is guilty of an offence just as much as somebody who exposes such equipment for sale. Perhaps it will save time if I say that

235
the object of this Amendment, and the reasons for it, are exactly the same as in the case of the Bill in another place concerning flick-knife provisions. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 9, after ("exposes") insert ("or offers").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: There is only one point I think we ought to consider: whether a man may perhaps make a quite innocent offer, not knowing that there is any fault in the particular stamping or piece of equipment. I believe that the purpose of Her Majesty's Government is obviously correct: it is to prevent anybody knowingly offering something which is faulty. But I should like to make quite sure that we are not perhaps going to cause the prosecution of some people who may be agents and do not even know there is something faulty in the stamping or marking or in the equipment itself.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Obviously there would have to be evidence of that for a prosecution to be successful. It would have to be shown that the person concerned knew that it was faulty.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Not always.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Evidence of possession of equipment for use for trade]:
LORD LATHAM: This Amendment is more than a verbal nicety. Doubts, and indeed fears, are held in certain quarters that the words "or, as the case may be", which I propose to omit would, in practice, be likely to give rise to serious doubt concerning which person should be charged with the offence specified in the clause. It is thought that circumstances may well arise where there will be difficulty in determining with reasonable certainty whether the person carrying on the trade, or the occupier of premises, or both, is the responsible person. In view of this, it is thought reasonable that both should be liable to be charged with the offence, so that in cases where there is
236
any doubt about which person is responsible, such doubt should be resolved by the court. It seems to me to be a valid point. It is one on which I, and no doubt other noble Lords, would like to hear from the noble Earl. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 36, leave out ("or, as the case may be") and insert ("and").—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The purpose of the words "or, as the case may be" which it is proposed to delete is this. If the owner of the unjust measure or scale is known, then, of course, there is no difficulty; for as the known possessor of the equipment the is the person who is liable. But supposing the owner is not known (there may be one or two people living in the house, so that, it is not clear to whom the equipment belongs), under this clause the occupier of the house is deemed to be the owner of the equipment and he has to show that he is not. The Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, would apply only to cases in which the owner of the equipment was known; and I am sure he would agree that in that event it would be absurd that both the identified owner and the occupier of the premises should be charged. The clause as now defined covers both cases and probably there will be no doubt; but if the owner is not known then the occupier of the premises will be deemed to be the owner. In any case, this is a matter of only one person, not two.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: The proposition which the noble Earl has stated is entirely reasonable and right, but I am still puzzled to know whether this clause means what he says it means. The words "as the case may be" do not seem to me to have the connotation of meaning that if it cannot be shown that the article is in the possession of the occupier, then it shall be deemed to be in possession of the person to whom the premises belong. I am sorry, but I cannot follow that that is the interpretation of the wording as it stands.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am anxious to meet the noble Lord's point, but I do not think there is anything here about the person to whom the premises belong. This has nothing to do with the owner of the premises; it concerns the occupier.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: But it is still not framed on the basis that if we are unable to find that these articles are in the possession of somebody carrying on the trade, then, as an alternative, they shall be deemed to be in the possession of the occupier. That is not what this clause says.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I believe that that is what the clause means. I will certainly consider whether we might substitute the words:
"or, if the owner cannot be identified, then he occupier"
but I am not sure that that would be necessary. I will seek advice upon it.
LORD HAWKE: I feel that it should be possible to find some other words. I wonder whether "as the case may be" is a term of art in use in the courts, because it conveys nothing to a layman such as myself.
LORD LATHAM: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his explanation but I am not convinced. I think the present words "as the case may be" are quite unusual in a clause of this kind. I am not a lawyer, but I should have thought that the, provision would be strengthened by leaving out the words "as the case may be" and inserting the word "and", so that the clause would run: "that person or the occupier". That would cover the case where there was a doubt as to whether it was the one or the other. Perhaps the noble Earl can look at that matter again.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: If there is any doubt whether it is the one or the other, what is meant by "that person"? Under the clause, if we do not know who is the owner of the article then we assume the owner is the occupier of the house in which the article is found. According to the noble Lord's Amendment the known owner of the article, who was identified, and the occupier of the house, who had nothing to do with the matter, would be deemed at the same time to be in possession of it—which is not reasonable.
LORD LATHAM: I should have thought that in the absence of that knowledge the words would not resolve the difficulty.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am suggesting that they do. Neither the noble
238
Lord nor I is a lawyer. Let us both consult the lawyers whom we have the advantage of knowing on the point.
LORD SILKIN: It seems to me that there is complete confusion about this clause, because I cannot see how there can ever be any doubt. According to the wording, this equipment is found in the possession of a person carrying on trade or on premises which are used for trade. He is identified. How can there be any doubt about it?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): There has been some talk of lawyers. I am sorry but I cannot see difficulty here. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, found his way out of the difficulty as he read the clause just now. It is:
"Where any weighing or measuring equipment is found in the possession of any person carrying on trade"—
that is the first limb, or possibility:
"or on any premises which are used for trade."—
so it has to be one or the other; in the possession of the person, or on the premises:
"that person"—
clearly the person carrying on the trade—
"or, as the case may be,"—
which means where it is not found in the possession of the person but on the premises—
"the occupier of those premises shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act, unless the contrary is proved, to have that equipment in his possession for use for trade."
I cannot think of any clearer words when one distinguishes between two possibilities:
"possession of any person"
and
"or on any premises".
Then we say either
"that person or, as the case may be, the occupier of those premises".
If we put in the words "as the case may be" we cannot go for the occupier of the premises when we have got the person, but we deal with either the person or the occupier and say that they will be deemed to have possession for the purposes of trade. Like my noble friend Lord Dundee, I am always ready to look at the matter again, but it seems

239
all right to me. However, if in the meantime any noble Lord sees any other difficulty I shall be glad to have a look at it again. But at the moment it seems all right.
LORD SILKIN: It seems clear when the noble and learned Viscount reads it out with the inflexions in his voice and the pauses, which seem to make sense of it at the time he reads it. But I do not think it is quite so clear to the ordinary person who reads this clause and I feel it could well be looked at again.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course; I will do that with pleasure.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
5.22 p.m.
Clause 18 [Equipment to which Act applies]:
LORD MILVERTON: A large number of local Act powers are being repealed as from six months after the passing of the Act. Many local authorities now possess powers under local Acts which control the use of personal weighing machines. Under subsection (1) (b) of Clause 18, the provisions in the Bill which will replace local Act powers relating to personal weighing machines are not to come into force
"until such date as the Board may by order…appoint"
I suggest that these provisions should come into force at the time when the local Act powers are repealed, six months from the date of the passing of the Act. This Amendment is intended to achieve that purpose.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 8, leave out from ("until") to end of line 8 and insert ("six months after the passing of this Act").—(Lord Milverton.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This, of course, is not a question of what ought to be done but of the date on which it ought to be started. The Amendment is designed to apply the provisions of the Bill to tank wagons used for the conveyance of milk, liquid fuel or lubricating oil, and to personal weighing machines. six months after the date of enactment of the Bill. As it stands, how-
240
ever, it would conflict with subsection (2) of the last clause, Clause 66. It would not be practicable to apply the provisions of the Bill to tank wagons until suitable testing equipment has been designed and is available to local authorities for the use of their inspectors.
Regulations about the testing will have to be made; and when this has been done users of these wagons will have to take the necessary steps to ensure that the vehicles comply with the requirements of the regulations. This could not be accomplished within six months of the enactment of the Bill, and I think it would not be desirable to lay down any fixed period. It will not be of pressing urgency until two years after the passing of a Bill, since only then will the requirements relating to wholesale sales of milk and liquid fuel in the Fifth and Eighth Schedules come into force. I would suggest to your Lordships that it would be best to apply the provisions of the Bill to tank wagons by order, after consultation with the interests concerned. Under subsection (1) of Clause 53 an order will have to be approved by a Resolution submitted to both Houses of Parliament.
With regard to weighing machines, in some parts of the country these are already subject to testing by inspectors under provisions in local Acts, and where this is the case there would not be much difficulty in applying the provisions of the Bill within a short space of time. But if we take the country as a whole there are hundreds of machines which have never before been subject to any official supervision and which will now have to be examined, and in many cases modified by the manufacturers, before they can be approved and stamped by local authority inspectors as fit for use. As in the case of the tank wagons, which I have already mentioned, this could not be done in six months. It is hoped again in this case that the necessary order can come into operation within two years after the passing of the Bill. That would avoid a gap between the termination of the provisions for testing these machines, which are at present contained in some of the local Acts which are repealed at that time, and the coming into force of the corresponding provisions on a national scale under this Bill as a whole.
LORD MILVERTON: I thank the noble Earl for this explanation, which I

241
find refreshingly convincing, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DERWENT: The oil industry at the present time has the right—and a most valuable right it is—to fill containers by weight and then convert to volume. What I think is important to Parliament is that this method does not restrict or jeopardise the rights of the retail buyer, as inspectors are able to prosecute for short volume at the point of sale. This is an existing right. In my submission, this Amendment merely continues this valuable right, which I think is necessary, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 27, after ("measuring by") insert ("weight or").—(Lord Derwent.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment relates to the provision in subsection (3) (d) of Clause 18 that none of the provisions in Part II of the Bill, relating to the testing and stamping of equipment by inspectors, shall apply to any volumetric measuring equipment used in the pre-packing of goods or to any container in which goods are packed by that equipment. This type of equipment is not, in fact, tested and stamped by inspectors at the present time. It is mainly used by manufacturers for pre-packing goods which are already required under the existing law to be packed in specified quantities only or to be marked with their quantity. The notable case is the machinery which automatically fills milk bottles to a particular level; and the level has to be set to give the pint or half-pint measure in which the law requires sales to be conducted. Equipment which operates on a similar principle is sometimes used to measure out by volume packs of butter, which then have to be marked with their weight before retail sale. The existing exemption which I have referred to, in subsection (3) (d), will not therefore result in any diminution of the protection which the public already enjoy.
My noble friend's Amendment proposes the exemption also of all types of weighing equipment used in the pre-packing of goods for trade purposes. Under existing law, inspectors already test the accuracy of this equipment; and,
242
although it is used in a number of cases to pre-pack goods which are required to be marked with their weight, this testing by inspectors gives a valuable safeguard to the public in respect of the pre-packing of goods which are not required under the present law to be marked with their weight. Therefore, I feel that the Amendment would reduce the area of consumer protection in this field.
If it is argued that the Schedules concerned—that is, the Fifth to the Ninth Schedules of this Bill—will have the effect of requiring a considerable number of additional pre-packed goods to be marked with their weight, so that the Amendment would not in fact reduce consumer protection to any significant extent, I would ask your Lordships to remember that the provisions in the Fifth to Ninth Schedules will not come into effect until two years after the passing of the Bill, whereas the provisions of Clause 18 will come into effect six months after the Bill is passed. So at the very least there would be a serious 18-months gap in consumer protection. The Government accept the view that there might be a case, at some stage, for considering whether weighing equipment used in the pre-packing of goods which are specifically required under the Bill to be marked with their weight could be exempted from the provisions of Part II of the Bill. We think that it would be unwise to do this until some practical experience had been gained of the effectiveness of the marking requirements from the point of view of consumer protection. I think a few years may be needed for this; but the Government will not overlook the possible future application of part at least of the principle which underlies my noble friend's Amendment. The necessary power to exempt such equipment by regulation is, of course, conferred upon the Board of Trade in subsection (4) (a) of this clause.
LORD DERWENT: I am grateful to my noble friend for his full answer, which at first sight appears to indicate that the Amendment by which I wanted to deal with a particular point was drawn far too widely. I think I am satisfied with his answer, but I should like to read it at length, carefully and slowly. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment would have the effect of deleting the words "equipment used by way of a tool" from the list of classes of equipment which are specifically exempted under subsection (2) of Clause 18 from testing and stamping by inspectors. This, like the Amendments which I moved to Clause 9, is really a matter of drafting. "Equipment used by way of a tool" was specifically exempted in Clause 18 to help remove doubts as to the interpretation of Clause 9. Now that the doubt has been resolved by the revised wording of Clause 9 it is no longer necessary to seek to include these words in Clause 18, for Clause 9 as revised already makes clear that "equipment used by way of a tool" (such as a carpenter's rule or an engineer's micrometer) is not to be regarded as in use for trade. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, leave out line 30.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved to add to subsection (3):
"(h) equipment used for the purpose of calculating the rate or amount of production by reference to a figure which combines the measurement of time and/or a measurement of any one or more of the descriptions referred to in subsection (1) of this section."
The noble Lord said: If your Lordships will look at subsection (3) of this clause, you will see that it specifically exempts certain types of equipment from the provisions of this Bill. The type of equipment covered by my Amendment to which I want to give exemption is designed for measuring distances, speeds or quantities, such as tachograph recorders, autograph recorders, electracorders and vibracorders. I must confess that I acquired knowledge of these intricate machines only very recently, although I have illustrations of them here which I could show your Lordships. I will give your Lordships an example of the kind of things these instruments do. A tachograph recorder is a recording speedometer, and is used on motor vehicles to record all speeds at which the vehicle has travelled and the time of day, and also the stopping and starting times and the distance travelled. On one type of this machine,
244
the appropriate rotation of the engine was also recorded. The purpose of these instruments is to give the transport operators a means of control over their vehicles while on the road, and, by such control, a means of minimising operational costs. Now taximeters are already exempted by this subsection, and I am asking that these tachograph instruments should also be exempted—chiefly because no local inspector of weights and measures would be able to make a proper test on elaborate machines of this type.
I also suggest that a possible argument that these instruments might come within the scope of Clause 9 of the Bill is pedantic. Of course, it is possible that the results obtained from these instruments might be used as a basis for calculating wages, but that is not the primary purpose of the machines, which is to obtain increased efficiency and to keep down production costs. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17. line 36, at end insert—
("() equipment used for the purpose of calculating the rate or amount of production by reference to a figure which combines the measurement of time and/or a measurement of any one or more of the descriptions referred to in subsection (1) of this section.")—(Lord Jessel.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am afraid that my own knowledge of tachograph recorders, autograph recorders, electracorders and vibracorders is even more recent than that of my noble friend Lord Jessel. I should be much interested to see the specimens he has with him, but think that perhaps it would not be in accordance with the Rules of Order that he should expose them or brandish them unduly in your Lordships' House. Like taximeters, these instruments all appear to deal with the measurement of time. Taximeters are specifically exempted by this subsection, but they are, of course, subject to other adequate safeguards in connection with the licensing of hackney carriages. This does not apply to the instruments to which the noble Lord's Amendment applies.
The noble Lord said that the application of Clause 9 to these instruments might be pedantic. I am afraid that, to me, it is not only pedantic; but, of course, I do not know how Clause 9

245
applies to them. However, if they should be so used it will be possible for specific exclusions to be made by Regulations under Clause 18, subsection (4), of the Bill if the application of the provisions of this Part of the Act appears unsuitable or if there are other adequate safeguards.
LORD JESSEL: I thank the noble Earl for his reply, which I should like to have an opportunity of studying. In the meantime, beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: May I say that we on this side of the House are interested in the samples that were mentioned, and—
LORD JESSEL: Pictures, not samples.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: —when we are dealing with a Bill concerning volume, measurement and the like, if there is any difficulty about identifying what is intended in the Bill, perhaps you could arrange a little exhibition of the articles in the Library, even if you could not bring them into the House. The Department might think that over.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: We have now reached the end of Part II of the Bill. I think we have made very good progress for the first afternoon, and I am most grateful to your Lordships in all parts of the House for the helpful and co-operative manner in which the Committee stage has been conducted. I wonder whether it would be in accordance with your Lordships' wishes that I now "call it a day"; and, if so, I beg leave to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved, That the House be now resumed.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN (PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES) BILL
5.40 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, my task is to move that this Bill be now read the second time. Its purpose is to attempt to reduce to a greater order the obscure and somewhat rigid rules governing those most useful of Parliamentarians, the Parliamentary Secretaries, and to give greater flexibility to their deployment among Departments. The Bill also authorises—and I shall have to discuss this in decreasing order of importance—the payment of salary not exceeding £2,500 per annum to a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Science, and an increase in salary (I shall not embarrass my noble friend by referring to it at great length) from £2,200 per annum to £3,000 per annum for the Chief Whip in the House of Lord's, the Captain of the Gentlemenat-Arms.
My Lords, I have referred to the position as regards Parliamentary Secretaries us both obscure and rigid. It has grown up, like Topsy, bit by bit. What has happened has been that gradually particular Departments, for no particular reason except the historical, have managed to attract to themselves, one, two or even three Parliamentary Secretaries or other junior Ministers, whereas other Departments have not done so. The effect has become such as to constitute an inconvenience to Parliament, since one naturally wants to deploy Under-Secretaries well as between the two Houses, taking into account in each case, very largely, the question of whether the senior Minister is in the House of Commons or in the House of Lords—something which is largely impossible at present.
I should perhaps explain that for the purposes of this Bill I use the expression "Parliamentary Secretaries" to include all those who hold the offices listed in Part II of the Second Schedule to the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957, with the exception of the Law Officers, the Officers of the Royal

247
Household, the Treasury Ministers, and the Junior Lords of the Treasury. I am quite prepared to give a full list of these distinguished offices, but perhaps the House will not require me to do so. The legal position with regard to the actual power to appoint Parliamentary Secretaries is, I am advised, obscure, but it is certainly governed by two sets of clear restrictions. These are the restriction on the numbers of Parliamentary Secretaries to whom salaries may be paid out of monies provided by Parliament, and the restriction on the numbers of those who are entitled to sit and vote in the House of Commons at any one time.
My Lords, as regards salaries there is statutory authority to pay salaries only to specified numbers of Parliamentary Secretaries in particular Departments. Thus, Section 2 (2) of the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937, as amended by the Act of 1951, limits the numbers of Parliamentary Secretaries to whom salaries may be paid by specifying the numbers for each Department to which the Acts refer. For other Departments, a limit is imposed by separate Acts. For example, the Ministry of Fuel and Power Act, 1945, provides only for the payment of a salary to one Parliamentary Secretary and to the Minister of Power. The Ministry of Defence has only one Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister himself.
The effect of this legislation is to allow salaries to be paid to a total of 32 Parliamentary Secretaries—which, with the addition of the one to be provided, if the House agrees, for the Minister for Science, makes 33 allowed for in the present Bill—but only in respect of offices limited to the specified numbers in the particular Departments. Again I should be prepared to give details, if pressed, but I doubt whether the House will be sufficiently interested to demand that I do so.
Section 2 (1) of the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957, limits the numbers of Ministers who are entitled to sit and vote in the House of Commons at any one time. Part I of the Second Schedule to that Act contains a list of senior Ministers, and Part II contains a list of junior Ministers. Section 2 enables 70 Ministers in all, and 27 senior
248
Ministers, to sit and vote at any one time in the House of Commons.
To come to the particular provisions of the present Bill, Clause 1 removes all the individual departmental limits on the numbers of Parliamentary Secretaries to whom salaries may be paid, and replaces them by a single aggregate limit of 33. That is the existing maximum permissible total of 32, plus one which I have mentioned. It will thus enable the Government to appoint more Parliamentary Secretaries in one Department by reducing the numbers appointed to other Departments, or by making use of unfilled vacancies within the authorised complement of 33 salaried posts. That, of course, will be a matter of convenience to both Houses and perhaps, in a sense, particularly to your Lordships' House, since it will enable those who speak for particular Departments in each House of Parliament to be closely concerned with the affairs of the Ministry in question more often than has hitherto been the case.
Those of your Lordships who have had experience, particularly in your Lordships' House, of having to reply on behalf of a Department with which one is not directly concerned departmentally realise the difficulty, indeed the exacting nature, of the task which is imposed upon one, especially where the matter has not previously been very much within one's own cognizance and is a matter of detail, and sometimes a matter of controversy, to which experts in either House legitimately demand a reasoned and sensible reply. I think I have explained that aspect sufficiently.
I come now to the second clause, which adds my own office to the list of those to whom a Parliamentary Secretary can be given. I make no apology for this provision. Without it, I should be, I believe, the only Minister who could not by Statute have one of the 32 Parliamentary secretaries, and I think this would be inconvenient at the present time; at any rate, it certainly would not be permanently convenient to exclude a senior Minister from the provisions of this Bill.
When my appointment was announced about fifteen months ago, the first thing which was criticised in the other place —and in my belief fairly criticised—was this: that questions about the

249
Medical Research Council and radio-biological hazards had to be answered, by the Minister of Health; questions relating to the Agricultural Research Council and the Nature Conservancy in England and Wales by the Minister of Agriculture; questions relating to the Atomic Energy Authority, to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and general scientific matters by the Minister of Education. Questions relating to space research had to be answered by the Minister of Aviation; and questions on atomic energy development, relating to matters for which the particular Minister was responsible, by that Minister. In addition, of course, the Secretary of State for Scotland answered a certain number of questions relating, I think, to the Nature Conservancy when it particularly affected their estates in Scotland.
This was not a popular state of affairs in another place; nor, I must add, was it convenient to me, because I should think that one of the main advantages in appointing a Minister for Science is to produce what is now referred to, in the popular jargon, as an "image" of scientific policy as a consistent whole. My various honourable and right honourable friends who have acted for me in the last fifteen months have done so with commendable devotion and extraordinary skill; but, of course, they could not answer supplementaries in the same way as somebody in the Office who knows the mind of the Minister can hope to do. There is a good deal of background information which, in the main, cannot be conveyed in the ordinary brief. Moreover, their attention to subjects corning within their control is incidental and disparate from their own departmental work. The effect of six or seven voices answering for the Department in one of the two Houses of Parliament. instead of one voice, is to prevent, I think, the building up of the coherent body of doctrine which we desire to build up about this Department and its work, and to prevent its succeeding in appearing as a coherent whole.
I know that it was suggested in another place that the Minister for Science should always be in the House of Commons. I know that your Lordships will forgive me for saying that I cannot for the life of me see why. Your Lordships' House has the duty of being one of the two
250
Houses of Parliament. And I should have thought that if there is any Office which ought not to excite the envy of a Commoner, it is the Office held by the Minister for Science. I can see why there was considerable discussion about the appointment of a Foreign Secretary in your Lordships' House. He has to deal with great issues of foreign policy and with the day-to-day position, and special provision had to be made. But if there is a Minister of Education in your Lordships' House, as I happened to be, or a First Lord of the Admiralty, as both my noble friend and I have been; if one can hold the Secretaryship of State for Commonwealth Relations, as did my noble friend Lord Home for years without any kind of controversy; then should have thought that the portfolio of an Office which is so much detached from what I might call the hurly-burly of politics as that of the Minister for Science, is ideally held in this place.
I would also add, as I think I said to your Lordships when the matter of the Foreign Secretaryship was discussed some months ago, that I do not think that a rigid pattern or doctrine should be established, except in relation to a relatively small number of places, as to which House should house particular portfolios. On the contrary, so long as we are a bi-cameral Government, I think that in the main something is to be gained by the establishment of a pattern which is not absolutely uniform in respect of every Department and which allows the suitability of possible incumbents and the particular needs of each case to be examined.
As regards my own ministerial experience, I would say without doubt that all the Departments which I have served have to some extent gained by my not being tied to the Division Lobby to the same extent that a Commons Minister inevitably is, and when the Departments were taken over by a Commons Minister, as was done in both cases, they have gained by having a change and by the Minister being able to answer for himself in another place. A Lords Minister is able to travel a good deal More than a Commons Minister and able to detach himself largely from Party association, if he wants to do so. Therefore, I do not think that there is any reason to lay down any doctrine about this matter. I feel that, just as your Lordships' House

251
will be served well if in some Departments it is found convenient to deploy an Under-Secretary here (otherwise questions would probably have to be answered by a Lord-in-Waiting or by the Minister in another place) so another place would gain if, when there are senior Ministries held in your Lordships' House, the corresponding Under-Secretaries are deployed in another place.
I do not think that I need say much more about the Bill. Subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 2 are technical, and I do not think I need explain them. The limit of 70 Ministers imposed by the earlier Act, to which I have referred, is not affected by the Bill, and no question arises of any total increase in the Government's power of patronage in the Commons. In practice, the addition of one Minister in the list without a corresponding increase in the limit of 70 is not likely to cause any embarrassment to the Government, as the number of Ministers actually appointed and sitting in the Commons often—I think always—falls short of the limit.
Clause 3 increases by £800 a year the salary of the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms. This salary was increased to £2,200 from the previous £1,200 under the Ministerial Salaries Act, 1957. The reason for this increase is to place him higher than the Captain of the Queen's Bodyguard, the Yeomen of the Guard, who is Assistant Government Chief Whip and, like him, a member of the Queen's Household. From being £300 less than that of a Parliamentary Secretary, his salary becomes £500 more. I hope that your Lordships will feel that I have done my duty to the House in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, which I now have the honour to do.
Moved, That die Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
5.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Viscount for the care with which he has explained the details of the Bill. He has faithfully followed the basic explanation which some of us have read in the Report of the debate in another place. There is only one controversial section of that
252
debate, which was gently expressed in another place, that the noble Viscount has really not attempted to answer—that is, the various queries about what exactly the Minister for Science does. In the debate in another place, a case was built up to show that the varied nature of the different technologies and the great range of science covered by the Minister were so great that the vast interest among Members of another place required the Minister to be there, to be under question. Perhaps there is something to be said for that view. I am fairly confident that if the noble Viscount had been a Member of another place, as he so greatly desired to remain at the time of his succession, this would have been the kind of criticism he would have made against a proposal of this kind coming from a Labour Government.
The case which the noble Viscount has put for the Minister for Science being in your Lordships' House is a good one, and I do not think that we can quarrel with it. The Ministerial posts held by Members of your Lordships' House have varied a great deal. We have had Foreign Secretaries even before the present beloved occupant of that office, we have had Secretaries of State for other important Departments and we have had the Minister of Defence. It seems to me that you must always allow to a Prime Minister a certain latitude in regard to the way he operates the spread between the two Chambers of the Ministerial appointments. Therefore I agree largely with what the noble Viscount said on that particular point.
But the other, lesser, point of numbers and salary arose from a case put by a Member of the other place: that if the Minister for Science had been a Member of the other place and not of your Lordships' House, then it might well have been that you would not have required the appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary, as such. I think that in some ways that can be justified. The office of Lord President of the Council is sometimes held in this House, which, as a rule, has meetings on fewer occasions in the week than in the other place. The Lord President of the Council, if acting in the other place as Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, meeting five days a

253
week and for long hours, certainly would not have much opportunity to apply himself effectively as Minister for Science also. It occurred to me that there was something to be said, in desiring to be economical in not overspending on Ministerial appointments—for the point that if the Minister for Science had been in another place you could probably have done without a separate Parliamentary Secretary, because Ministers like the Lord President of the Council or some other Minister here would have answered for his colleague in the Commons.
That, again, does not interfere with what should be the right of the choice of the Prime Minister as to how he achieves the number of Parliamentary Secretaryships; and I did not fail to take note that in the explanations given on behalf of the Treasury in another Place they were careful to point out that the total aggregate of 70 Ministers, senior and junior, is not only not exceeded, but that there are certain Departments which now have vacancies for Ministerial appointments. The real effect of this Bill, as it seems to me, is that it will give latitude to the head of the Government to vary an appointment of a successor of a previous junior Minister from the exact Department where he was before, and he will have freedom, within the aggregate total, to use up present vacancies by not refilling them in the Department at present concerned but transferring the new appointment to some other Department where some new duty occurs. I think that is reasonable, and I am sure my colleagues on this side of the House would agree with it. While I was anxious to put the point that I had deduced from the debate in another place, I do not think I have any ground for raising opposition of any sort to the appointments.
I can say, quite briefly, on the other matter of the increase of salary of the noble Earl, whom we all like so much in this House and who has such a long title that one never wants to keep on repeating it—he is just plain Chief Whip of the Government Party of this House—that we think the increase in the salary is just. It is necessary from the point of view of what I call the proper professional standing in relation to other appointments of Her Majesty's Household; it keeps the balance right, and it is,
254
I think, personally deserved. That being so, we wish him joy of it, and hope he will not spend it all before Christmas but will at least keep something for a rainy day next year.
6.4 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I suppose -there is no better way for a Back Bencher to commit Parliamentary suicide than to criticise a Bill which raises the salary of his own Chief Whip. I still think there is much else to be said in favour of this Bill, and to support the Second Reading. But I want to deal as briefly as I can with what I think is a new point, a rather specialised point, and one which directly concerns the composition of your Lordships' House. I want to ask the Government at the appropriate time to introduce a Bill to increase the number of Parliamentary Secretaries from 33 to 36, and to supplant the three political Lords in Waiting by three new Parliamentary Secretaries. This would not raise the total number of Ministers in the Government, but would merely raise the total number of Parliamentary Secretaries at the expense of -the three Parliamentary Lords in Waiting.
I thought at first that I should make this request on the Committee stage of the Bill, but I decided against that, for three reasons. First of all, as I say, it directly affects the constitution of your Lordships' House; and that, I feel, is a matter which should be dealt with on Second Reading. Secondly, as those Lords in Waiting are also members of the Royal Household, I thought that the matter was not one which ought to be dealt with in Committee. Thirdly, this matter, of necessity, involves finance, which is always a delicate subject in your Lordships' House. It will mean substituting for the three salaries of £2,000 a year which Lords in Waiting have previously enjoyed (I think that is the word) salaries of £2,500 a year for the Parliamentary Secretaries. That will cost us, therefore, £1,500 a year more. In any case, I do not regard either of those two figures as the proper rate for the job. They are not salaries, but honoraria; they are gratuities; they are pourboires—and pour very small boires at that! These I would regard as Second Reading points. And I think the change

255
I have suggested should, come more appropriately from Her Majesty's Government, to whom I am about to commend it, than from a Back Bencher.
If your Lordships consult the current edition of Vacher's Parliamentary Companion you will see that on the pages devoted to the Royal Household, under "Lords in Waiting" there are listed Lord Nugent, the Earl of Eldon, the Earl of Westmorland, Earl Bathurst and Lord St. Oswald. We know that two of those noble Lords are political appointments—they are, indeed, both in the House at this moment: they are members of the Government. All five of them, however, perform the normal Household duties as members of Her Majesty's Household. I may say at once that I intend nothing in any way disrespectful to those duties in the suggestion that I am now making; it is a great honour to be asked to carry them out. They are such functions as meeting Ambassadors on behalf of the Sovereign on their return from a period of duty, or representing the Crown at the funeral of some important person. This fact is known inside your Lordships' House, but it is little known outside.
These members of the Government (there are actually only two political Lords in Waiting at the moment, but there is a vacancy on the establishment) are paid as full-time members of the Government, and have to give up their civilian jobs in ordinary life—and probably their pensions as well—for all the normal disadvantages and, admittedly, advantages, which a Minister enjoys. They represent several Departments at the same time. For nearly six years, if I may quote my personal experience, I had the honour of representing the Board of Trade, the Home Office, the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government all at the same time. If that surprises your Lordships, I can only say that it does not surprise you as much as it did the Board of Trade, the Home Office, the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
Those Lords in Waiting speak at the Despatch Box on behalf of the Govern-
256
ment and make Party political speeches here in your Lordships' House; they make speeches in the country at the week-end; they make speeches at the hustings; at social and trade functions they represent the Government, and, indeed, they represent the Government on numerous occasions abroad. That leads to great confusion and difficulty, and the change I want to make is primarily for that reason. There are many other noble Lords in this House who have had the honour to hold the office of Lord in Waiting, and there will be a few of them who have not had the experience I had on numerous occasions, of great embarrassment not only to oneself but because one felt that one's position was causing the Household embarrassment.
Let me give your Lordships, if I may, one example. When I was representing the Board of Trade, I was sent to Sweden on behalf of the President to open on behalf of Her Majesty's Government the British Pavilion in the St. Erik's Fair. I was warned in advance that there was likely to be criticism from Swedish businessmen about a certain line concerning tariffs which the Board of Trade were taking. I was armed with the answer to that criticism, should it arise. It arose at a trade banquet, and I replied to it on behalf of the Government as best I could. The next morning I was heavily assailed for having, as Lord in Waiting, a member of Her Majesty's Household, and Court official, become embroiled in Party politics. Our commercial attaché had the busiest day of his life in trying to put that matter right in Swedish circles.
I can well remember the noble Lord, Lord Holden. much liked on all sides of the House, making a rousing political speech one Saturday afternoon on behalf of the Labour Party, and being soundly trounced in his local paper for having again embroiled himself in Party politics as a member of the Household. He was so upset that he offered the noble Viscount, the late Lord Addison, his resignation. which Lord Addison would not take. It is to get this matter put right that I am raising it before your Lordships at this moment. It so happened that the noble Viscount had great sympathy for the line I am now advancing. But he was not able to find sufficient Parliamentary time. Indeed, he reported back to us quite frankly that he did not think his

257
political colleagues in the Labour Party in another place would stand for it. Considering what the political Labour Party have to stand for from their own colleagues at the moment, I feel that this argument will no longer carry weight. We now have the opportunity of putting this matter right. This is the first occasion I can remember when a Bill has been before your Lordships in which this matter can be put right. I ought perhaps to add that, if the other place is concerned, as it must be, the same problem does not arise there, although it appears that it might.
There they have the Comptroller of the Household, the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household and the Treasurer of the Household. All those are political members of the Household, with these two essential differences: that they have after their names in Vacher the initials "M.P.", so that all know they are politicians, whereas the five Lords in Waiting are indistinguishable—they carry no distinctive mark. Furthermore, those three Members in another place are all Whips and, by convention, are mute, and do not make political speeches in another place. The third reason is that, by convention, they largely confine their political work in the country to their own constituencies, the position there being well known. So the position in another place is nothing like so difficult as it is here.
The second reason why I want to make this change—the change I am now recommending to your Lordships—is this. The burden of work that falls upon the Lords in Waiting is, in my view, unjustly heavy. They are always "on parade"; they are always answering questions of a controversial and difficult nature for Departments constantly involved in day-to-day politics. As both my noble friend Lord Hailsham and the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, have pointed out, it is a flexible situation, where the weight of effort may change not only with the burden of work falling on a particular Ministry, but with the positioning of the senior Ministers in one of the two Houses. Your Lordships only have to look at the index of Hansard to see that there are three Departments which are not represented on the Front Bench but which are always under a heavy burden of work. They are, of course, the Board
258
of Trade, the Home Office and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. We now have on the Front Bench a representative both of agriculture and of transport.
At the time of the debate on the Queen's speech, I made a plea that if the other place were to complain as often as it did that it did not get time to sit back and take a broad view of the nation's worries because the Members were too much overburdened with day-to-day political administration, then the solution was to give more political work of worth to your Lordships' House. I am happy to see that we have no cause for complaint with a Bill with nearly 200 Amendments before us at this very moment. But if we are to carry out that work as we wish to do it, we must give the members of the Government who are to answer for the Government from that Front Bench a chance to carry it out in the best way they can, and in the way we would wish. A Lord in Waiting cannot possibly do it. He has no administrative staff behind him, no secretarial staff and no civil servant to brief him and keep him continually in the picture. Therefore, I think the solution would be to allow those three positions of Lord in Waiting to go now to Members of your Lordships' House who are not closely identified with any Party politics, or any politics at all.
My Lords, I again wish to make it clear that I am not suggesting that this work is not of the utmost dignity and importance. I think it should be divorced entirely from the Front Bench, from the Despatch Box, and from the hustings in the country. The three noble Lords who have hitherto done this work should now be elevated to the dignity of a Parliamentary Secretary, allowing sufficient fluidity for their jobs to be changed from time to time. I fear that the present position is unfair to the noble Lords who carry it out. It is embarrassing' to them, and it is unfair to the Household that there should be this confusion which has frequently to be explained to uninitiated audiences, to foreigners and to newspapermen: the fact that there is no link between the Parties and the Lord in Waiting and his Royal office. It is unfair to the noble Lords, it is unfair to the House, and it is unfair to the Royal Household.

259
I do not ask my noble friend the Leader of the House to give an answer to this point this afternoon, but I shall ask him to be good enough, if he considers that there is merit of any sort in my suggestion, to see whether the necessary arrangements cannot be made on the Committee stage to correct what I believe is a serious and unfortunate mischance in the constitution of our House. I commend the point both to the Government and to your Lordships' House.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, an interesting point has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, which I think everybody will carefully consider, but I believe he will agree that if we took the political work away from the Lords in Waiting, so that the Royal Family should not be identified in rather ignorant minds with political activities, we should also have to consider the positions of the Chief Whip and the Deputy Chief Whip in this House. Both these noble Lords occupy a position in the Household purely, as I understand it, in order that they shall receive a salary, so that they can perform the duties of Whips. Therefore, if the Government are going to give this matter consideration, it cannot just be limited to the question of Lords in Waiting, but must also include the senior posts of the Chief Whip and the Deputy Chief Whip.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, there is much merit in what the noble Lord says. I deliberately did not wish to confuse the issue by raising that point, particularly in view of the fact that of late the Chief Whip and the Deputy Chief Whip—it is embarrassing to mention them in both their presences have tended less and less to make political speeches as more and more work has fallen on the Lords in Waiting and the other Parliamentary Secretaries who have of late enhanced the Front Bench in this House.
6.18 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, as another member of the trade union of late Lords in Waiting, may I say that at first glance I agree heartily with what my noble friend Lord Mancroft has said. I, too, have been put in positions of great embarrassment by this rather incongruous title of Lord in Waiting.
260
For instance, when Her Majesty's Government ran out of Foreign Office Ministers, all five being engaged elsewhere, I was once despatched in charge of a British delegation to some enormous and not very useful Conference at Geneva. I found it very difficult to explain to Russians, Belgians and the like exactly what a Lord in Waiting was. Again, constantly being introduced at political meetings as Lord in Waiting to the Queen is really most embarrassing, and my first words always had to be in explanation that I was not quite what I was said to be.
I feel that to turn them into some form of Parliamentary Secretary would he of enormous value to the Lords in Waiting themselves, in that it would give them a status, because it would give them a definite home and a desk where they could sit and where they could receive some clerical assistance. I was fortunate for a good long time in serving a Minister who had himself been a Lord in Waiting, and he was careful to see that I was provided with some sort of kennel where assistance could be provided, and he shared the bones around. But it is perfectly possible to serve with a Minister perhaps more centralised in type and be never called to any conference and never receive any bones at all. Therefore I am heartily in favour of giving the Lords in Waiting a status and some definite work to do, because I feel that those very overworked Ministers in another place in many cases could well do with a further assistant for opening functions and for being their eyes and ears. Just as the Archdeacon is the eyes of the Bishop and there are generally about three of them to each Bishop, I do not see why in some cases Ministers should not have a couple of Parliamentary Secretaries.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, as a further member of the trade union, I would say no more than that I heartily agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, have said. There is no doubt that Ministries did their best to help one out as a Lord in Waiting, but somehow one never quite had the status or entrée to the meetings that Parliamentary Secretaries have, and one could not, with ease, give the sort of service one would like

261
to do in busy times. I certainly commend the suggestion.
6.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I should like first of all to thank the noble Viscount who leads the opposition for his, I must say, generous and friendly remarks. He tended, I think, to suggest that this might have been an occasion to tell the House what the Minister for Science did. The last time I did so, which was about two weeks ago, I had an urgent complaint from members of my own Party that Ministers at the Box were taking too long, and three names were mentioned: one was the Lord Chancellor, I was another, and I will not tell your Lordships who the third was. I was deterred by this rather terrifying experience and I omitted to give a long description of my duties to-day. I also feared that I might have been out of order. But as I am constantly with your Lordships, your Lordships can either ask me this question, or debate it, on any occasion you like.
I do not agree with the point made by the noble Viscount that if the role were reversed and the Minister for Science were in another place the Consolidated Fund would necessarily be richer by £2,500. I think not. Of course it would rest then with the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip to negotiate with their colleagues in the Commons as to which Under-Secretaryships under this Bill, if it is passed, would pass to this House. But if they are as jealous of the honour of the House as I think my noble friend is likely to be, they would not be likely to let it all go too easily, and whether it would be the Under-Secretaryship of the Home Office or of the Ministry for Science or of the Commonwealth Relations Office or of the Foreign Office would depend on the circumstances at the time. I am quite sure the Chief Whip would be negotiating to have for this House as many in point of number as if the Minister for Science were in the House of Lords and his Parliamentary Secretary in the House of Commons. The point was quite a fair one to take, but I doubt very much whether it is correct. Nor do I think Parliament should really proceed upon the financial basis in this particular case. What matters for a Government is to be able to serve Parliament, to which it is responsible, and
262
I am perfectly sure Parliament in both its Houses would wish to provide for the Government the means of doing so in the manner most suited to the interest and dignity of public life.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in his very well-expressed, discreet and powerfully argued speech, raised a point of which he gave me notice, and, with his permission, as I do not think I can give him much legislative comfort, I would say a word or two to-day about the point he raised. I am not at all sure that the point he raised is within the ambit of this Bill; I doubt how far it is within the Long Title or the scope of the Bill. But if we were going to legislate about Lords in Waiting I think we should inevitably have to deal with all the Household appointments and not just two in the House of Lords. I do no: think it would be sensible to take these two by a side wind. It has occurred, or I have no doubt it will occur, to the noble Lord's highly versatile and original mind that at any rate some part of what he asked for in his speech could be granted, if this Bill were passed, administratively, if the Government were disposed to do something of that kind. Some part of what he and his noble friends said was really an echo of something I said in the opening speech, that it was in many ways more convenient from the point of view of a junior Minister that he should have a Ministry, and thereby a. private room to work in and a home to which he could go. In that respect it may prove in practice that the working of this Bill will actually achieve some part of what my noble friend said.
I think it is possible both to exaggerate and also to forget the extent to which many of our curious arrangements are anomalous and baffling to other people. When I went to America I found it very difficult to explain to my friends there exactly what a Lord Privy Seal was. They did not seem to know this elementary fact about our Constitution. And, indeed, your Lordships would be surprised how many people in this country asked me if there really were such a thing as a Privy Seal to be Lord of. Of course there is, and it is a very beautiful article. The Lord President of the Council is a funny kind of name; so is Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and so is Paymaster-General, which seems at first sight to be an office of an

263
almost unexampled opulence. Indeed, I am told it was bought and sold for large sums in the eighteenth century, when it did have some valuable functions attached to it.
All these things are part of the strange Constitution under which we live: and—if I may just say something quite seriously —if this country can understand and accept the idea of putting the most controversial political manifesto every year into the lips of the Sovereign herself, as we do every time Parliament is opened,
264
I think it can stomach a couple of Lords in Waiting getting embarrassed at a ward meeting of a local Conservative Party. There is a great deal in what my noble friend said, but I hope, with that explanation and comfort, the House will be prepared to give a Second Reading to the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past six o'clock.