WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 13 December 1960 vol 227 cc413-62

4.54 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be again in 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.]

Clause 25:

Short weight, etc.

25.—

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, any person who, on or in connection with the sale of any goods, or in exposing or offering any goods for sale, or in purporting to make known to the buyer thereof the quantity of any goods sold, makes any misrepresentation either by word of mouth or otherwise as to the quantity of the goods, or who does any other act calculated to mislead any person as to the quantity of the goods, shall he guilty of an offence.

(7) Nothing in this section shall apply to any goods or sale falling within paragaph (a) or (b) of subsection (5) of section twenty-two of this Act; and except in relation to—

1. (a) a sale of goods required by or under this Act to he sold only by quantity expressed in a particular manner; or
2. (b) a sale of goods in the case of which the quantity of the goods sold is required by or under this Act to be made known to the buyer at or before delivery of the goods to him; or
3. (c) a sale of goods which are pre-packed or otherwise made up in a container for sale and of which the container is required by or under this Act to be marked with an indication of quantity; or
4. (d) goods carried for reward which are required by or under this Act to be so carried only in pursuance of an agreement made by reference to the quantity of the goods expressed in a particular manner.

nothing in this section shall apply to any goods if the sale or carriage in question is with a view to the use of those goods—

1. (i) in constructional work; or
2. (ii) in the manufacture of, or for incorporation in, goods of a different description,

in the course of the carrying on of a business.

LORD FARINGDON

When the noble Earl moved the adjournment of the Committee stage last night he suggested that there was a change in the type of Amendments from this point. Some of your Lordships may have thought that this particular Amendment has a slightly odd look about it. To add the sellers to the buyers would seem an odd proceeding in some ways. The object of most of the provisions of this Bill are, in fact, to protect the consumer or the buyer. But there are a considerable number of transactions where in fact the person to be protected is not the buyer but the seller, where the tradesman is the buyer—these are such sales as the sale of rags or of scrap iron which is sold to an itinerant dealer by the householder. It is for his or her protection that I am moving this Amendment to the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 24, line 23, after ("buyer") insert ("or seller").—(Lord Faringdon.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

This subsection was drafted on the assumption that in the overwhelming majority of transactions it will be the seller of the goods who will in practice be responsible for making their quantity known to the buyer and who will therefore be in a position to mislead or to misrepresent. However, we accept that there will be a significant number of cases where the buyer, not the seller, will in practice he responsible for making the quantity known and who will equally be in a position to mislead or misrepresent. As the noble Lord has pointed out, it should be as much an offence for the buyer to defraud the seller as to quantity as it is for the seller, when he is in a position to do so, to defraud the buyer.

I see the merit of the noble Lord's Amendment. I do not think it could be inserted in its present form here. The phrase in lines 22 and 23: or in purporting to make known to the buyer thereof "— refers back to the concepts in lines 21 and 22 of the sale, or the exposing or offering for sale, of the goods; and it will be necessary to expand these concepts to covet purchase as well. But if the noble Lord could see his way to withdrawing the Amendment at this stage, I will consider the matter further with a view to tabling an appropriate Amendment giving effect to his purpose at a later stage.

LORD FARINGDON

I thank the noble Earl very much indeed for his reception of this Amendment, and on that understanding I withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DERWENT moved, in subsection (7), to omit all words after the first "Act". The noble Lord said: I am again this afternoon dealing with Lord Jessel's Amendments as he has not recovered. The words to which I object, and which I am trying to take out of the Bill, deprive of the benefits of the exemption mentioned all goods which are, or may in the future be, covered by the provisions either of a Schedule or by an Order or Regulation made under the Act. The Board has already accepted the principle that transactions between manufacturers, and between manufacturers and large consumers, do not require the same control provision as are necessary to give protection to the housewife; and it is difficult to see any logical reason for excluding transactions of this kind merely because they relate to goods which are the subject of provision elsewhere in the Bill.

May I refer your Lordships to the Explanatory Memorandum at the beginning of the Bill, to page iii, Clause 25. In this Explanatory Memorandum it says: This general 'short weight' provision applies to virtually all sales in terms of quantity other than sales to persons purchasing goods for a manufacturing, processing or constructional business. Those are to be exempt. If the clause is allowed to stay as it is, that Explanatory 'Memorandum is complete nonsense and is definitely misleading. So far as I can see, there is absolutely no reason to retain the words which I seek to take out of the Bill, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 25, line 39, leave out from ("and") to end of line 8 on page 26.—(Lord Derwent.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I am sure that in the absence of my noble friend Lord Jessel, your Lordships are indebted to my noble friend Lord Derwent for stating so clearly at such short notice the case for this important Amendment. Its effect would be to render virtually inoperative all the requirements of the Fifth to Ninth Schedules relating to transactions in the goods specified in those Schedules when those goods were being sold or carried with a view to their use in constructional work or in the manufacture of other goods. Clause 25, to which the Amendment relates, is the key clause in the structure of these Schedules, because it is the main clause under which an offence arises if there is a deficiency in the quantity, or misrepresentation as to the quantity, of the specific goods which these Schedules require to be sold or carried in terms of quantity.

One major difficulty that this Amendment would cause would be to weaken the protection to the ordinary retail buyer. For example, certain pre-packed goods are required to be marked with their quantity, and when an inspector carries out sample tests at a wholesaler's premises he may find that some of the packs are underweight. The public could be seriously defrauded if these goods passed into the shops; but the inspector would be powerless to take any action if the wholesaler said that those particular goods were intended for sale to an industrial buyer. An easy escape would be opened to fraudulent traders who had defaulted on their obligations under the Bill designed to protect consumers; and the authorities who are responsible for the enforcement of the law could be hamstrung.

The Amendment would also make nonsense of a number of specific provisions in these Schedules, the Fifth to the Ninth—provisions which my noble friend has not yet suggested deleting as consequential to the present Amendment. For example, the Sixth Schedule broadly reproduces provisions governing the sale and carriage of sand and other ballast which have been in existence since the passing of the Weights and Measures Act, 1936, and which both the buyers and sellers in this trade have represented as being of great value to them. The majority of transactions involving the sale and carriage of such goods are, in fact, to those engaged in building and structural engineering work, and the present Amendment would make it virtually impossible for the local authorities to take action if short weight or measure were detected in this trade.

Another point of the same kind would arise on the Seventh Schedule, in respect of sales of solid fuel to the industries which use such fuel, either as a fuel or as a raw material. Since the Weights and Measures Act, 1889, was passed, all sales of coal have been required to be by weight, and this Amendment would not only remove a form of protection which industrial buyers have found to be of value since those days but would also make it doubly difficult for the inspectors to continue to give this protection to the householder, since an inspector could never be sure whether or not a particular consignment the weight of which he wished to check in transit was really intended for sale to an industrial buyer.

We are always ready to be sympathetic to those who ask that industry should not be given wholly unnecessary forms of protection under this Bill; and we have, I think, shown that we are trying to meet your Lordships in some respects, and have demonstrated that by the exemption for sales to industrial buyers which are voluntarily conducted in terms of quantity—which sales must surely constitute the great majority of the clay-today transactions in which industrial buyers participate. Where, however, a case has been made out for a particular class of goods to be the subject of a specific requirement in the Bill as to its sale in a particular manner of quantity, we believe that the general exemption for industrial buyers which the Amendment proposes would operate unfairly upon those particular classes of industrial buyers who have represented that they wish to have protection in this respect. Moreover, as I say, we feel that it would detract very seriously from the general value of the Bill as a measure of consumer protection.

LORD DERWENT

That is what comes of moving somebody else's Amendment: I have been accused, for the first time in my life, of trying to hamstring an authority. I will, of course, read what my noble friend has said, and I am very glad, particularly in the circumstances, that he has put his reply so fully. I believe that it boils down to this: that, while I still feel that my case is not a bad one, it is now clear, in view of my noble friend's reply, that the Amendment was drawn far too widely. On the Report stage my noble friend Lord Jessel may well want to put down another Amendment on a much narrower line. That is my first reaction; but at the moment I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DERWENT moved, in subsection (7) after "use" to insert "or consumption". The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to deal with Amendments Nos. 56, 57 and 58 together because they are all on the same subject. If these Amendments are accepted, the exemption will read like this: Nothing in this section shall apply to any goods if the sale or carriage in question is with a view to the use or consumption of those goods in the course of the carrying on a business not being a retail business. The principle behind this exemption has been accepted by your Lordships' House in the Birmingham Corporation Act, 1958, and the object is to avoid imposing unnecessarily onerous and expensive requirements on the manufacturing industry.

The wording of the exemption as at present drafted, without the Amendment, might exclude from the benefit of the exemption a variety of goods which are used in the manufacturing process but do not form part of the manufactured article. Examples of such goods are: explosives used in demolition work or mining, greases, lubricants, catalysts and solvents used in treating trade effluents. All are used in a manufacturing process but are not part of the manufactured product. I believe that will probably be clear to your Lordships. As the Clause is drafted at the moment I believe there is unnecessary hardship on these manufacturing businesses. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 26, line 10, after ("use") insert ("or consumption").—(Lord Derwent.)

LORD ST. OSWALD

These Amendments would carry the Bill's exemptions even further than that lately withdrawn by the noble Lord. They would extend them to cover any goods sold with a view to their use and consumption in the course of carrying on a business except where the buyer was engaged in carrying on any form of retail business. In other words, their use would not he restricted to manufacture or constructional work but would apply to almost any form of business whatever. Thus many thousands of small farmers and service businesses, from dry cleaners to window cleaners, would be stripped at a blow of all the protection which the Bill gives them against short weight. It would be interesting to know how far such businesses have expressed a will to be free from all protection.

Again, a wholesaler buying from a supplier might be said to be "using" the goods in the course of his business, even though he was selling them to the retailer in exactly the same state as he received them; and the retailer might similarly be said to be using his supplies in the course of his retail business if he was selling them on to the public in exactly the same state as he received them. The Amendment, would, in fact, restrict the protection which Clause 25 confers almost entirely to the final consumer, and would leave both the large and the small retailer and wholesaler to fend for themselves.

At present, the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887 to 1953, give them a protection against short weight and measure where they have obtained a written statement from their suppliers as to quantity; and it would be a sad commentary upon a Weights and Measures Bill of 1960 if it could not take over this type of protection from the Merchandise Marks Acts in respect of at least a substantial proportion of the everyday trade of the ordinary middleman. Even the manufacturers themselves might not welcome such a wide gap in the law. If a man buys for the office, in the course of business, a box of staples or paper clips which is marked with its quantity but which proves to be seriously deficient in quantity, he tends to feel that "there ought to be a law about it". There will be, as Clause 25 is at present drafted; but with the present Amendment, there would not be.

Indeed, so widespread would become the classes of purchaser exempt that it would be difficult to enforce Clause 25 in the case of goods voluntarily marked with their contents and offered for sale to retail shops, since in many cases they might be bought for consumption in a business. Similarly, the subsection as at present drafted would exempt such goods sold in such circumstances where the seller was engaged in any form of business, be it retail or wholesale. The effect of the Amendment would be to render the exemption inoperative where the buyer was engaged in carrying on any form of retail business,

The Government, as is evident from the existing provisions in subsection (7) of this clause, have accepted the undesirability of giving the industrial buyers of raw materials and semi-manufactured goods a protection under Clause 25 against short quantity which they maintain they do not need. But the effect of the present Amendment would be to restore that protection to certain classes of manufacturers who have said they do not want it—namely, the manufacturers who run a retail business side by side with their manufacturing businesses. Cases in point would be the manufacturer or processor who runs a mail-order business, or the factory which has a sales showroom attached to it. Such an ancillary retail business, even though only a side-line to the main manufacturing business, would seem to be sufficient under the Amendment to carry the whole business outside the scope of the exemption in subsection (7). The practical effects of the wording of the Amendment would, therefore, depend quite fortuitously upon whether the manufacturer ran a rein it; and if the primary object is to ensure that the exemption in this subsection covers squarely the ordinary manufacturing and processing business but not the ordinary retail trader, the Government would suggest to the House that the present wording of the subsection, which had precisely this object in mind, is still the best means of achieving it.

LORD DERWENT

I thank my noble friend for his detailed reply. If I may perhaps give a précis of the reply it is the words "too wide". I shall have a look at it and judge with my noble friend a narrower Amendment for the next stage, because I think there is still something wrong, although I agree with a large part of the reply so far as I have had time to study it. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25 agreed to.

Clause 26 agreed to.

Clause 27:

Additional defences and safeguards for traders

27.—

(3) In any proceedings for an offence under this Part of this Act or any instrument made thereunder, being art offence in respect of any excess in the quantity of any goods, it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that the excess was reasonable and necessary in order to avoid a further offence arising at a subsequent time by reason of the goods having by then become deficient in quantity.

(4) In any proceedings for an offence under this Part of this Act or any instrument made thereunder, being an offence in respect of any deficiency or excess in the quantity—

1. (a) of any pre-packed goods; or
2. (b) of any goods which have been otherwise made up in containers for sale, or have been made for sale, or have been sold, and which are required by or under this Act to be so made up or made or to he sold, as the case may be, only in a particular quantity,

the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say—

1. (i) if the proceedings are in respect of a single article, the court shall disregard any inconsiderable deficiency or, as the case may be, excess; and
2. (ii) if the proceedings are in respect of one or more of a number of articles of the same kind tested on the same occasion, being articles which, or articles containing goods which, were sold by the person charged or in that person's possession for sale, the court shall have regard to the average quantity of, or of the goods contained in, all the articles tested and generally to all the circumstances of the case.

5.15 p.m.

LORD HAWKE moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: move this Amendment not because I wish to leave out this subsection—I do not—but to draw attention to one aspect of the Bill and to ask Her Majesty's Government for their explanation of it. As the Bill is drafted, there is an offence created for giving underweight, and penalties are prescribed; but nowhere in the Bill is there mention of any offence for giving overweight. Yet this subsection (3) provides a defence in the event of proceedings for an offence in respect of giving an excess quantity of any goods. I know that in the Merchandise Marks Act, 1953, which prohibits false or misleading trade descriptions, a declaration of weight is, I believe, held to be a trade description, but I have never heard of any prosecution of anybody for giving overweight. I wonder why this Bill by inference visualises such an offence. Is it morally right to do so? We are told to give good measure, pressed down and running over but the moment we start to get "running over" we shall find our way to the courts and be asked if we can plead Section 27 (3) in extenuation of the circumstances. It looks to me as if the butcher who often tempers the wind to the old-age pensioner and gives her 1¼ lb. of stewing steak when she asks for 1 lb. may be guilty of an offence. He certainly could not plead this particular defence, and he would stand to be convicted of undue charity.

Then, finally, when we come to the defence itself, we find that it is to the effect that the person charged has to prove that he gave the excess believing that at some future date his goods would shrink down and slough off the excess. That, of course, would be a perfectly adequate defence in many pre-packed foodstuffs. For instance, Christmas puddings are always packed overweight—and I imagine that many other foodstuffs are, too. But it would not provide a defence to the carbonate drink manufacturer of what I believe in plain language is "pop", who, for technical reasons, always slightly overfills his bottles and could have no possible ground for believing that evaporation could reduce the level, because he has put a sealed cork upon them. It is for reasons such as these that I took the liberty of bringing this Amendment before the Committee to hear Her Majesty's Government tell us what they think about the offence of giving overweight.

Amendment moved—

Page 28, line 16, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Hawke.)

LORD SALTOUN

As this is an exploratory Amendment may I ask for clarification, which I prefer to do on this point, rather than on the previous Amendments? Like my noble friend Lord Hawke, I cannot see how an offence could frequently be considered to have been committed by giving overweight, unless it was a chemist giving a poisonous medicine, in which case I suppose it might conceivably happen. But if I understand the Bill rightly (and I am ready to believe that I do not), I understand that the principal thing we are doing is relating the unit of length to the wavelength of a certain colour of light, and the unit of weight is not related to that in the way in which units of weight have been hitherto (because water loses so many molecules so rapidly into the atmosphere by which it is surrounded), but is related to a metal weight which is kept near Paris in a velvet box and exposed only very rarely in order to test it and to make certain verifications.

Now if our units are reduced to this very fine standard, what happens if you go into Harrods, as I did the other day, and buy 2 lb. of cheese? It is practically an impossibility that your 2 lb. of cheese will be exactly in conformity with those weights. Such weights are bound to be rough and ready measurements, and, in that case, what becomes of underweight and overweight? I imagine that if I took an action against Harrods because the 2 lb. of cheese that they sold me was not precisely in conformity with the measure that is kept, I believe, at Paris, I should lose my action because nobody would entertain it; but that is an entirely different thing. We are legislating here for a matter of overweight or underweight, and one would really like to know where the offence begins and what the proportions are. They may be in the Bill, but I cannot recollect having seen them.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My noble friend Lord Saltoun need not be afraid that he will have to go to the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in Paris to test his 2 lb. of cheese. For the purpose of this Bill, the immediate legal standard will be that in the possession of the local authority, which is the weights and measures authority for the district. When my noble friend Lord Hawke said that he had never heard of a case of anybody being prosecuted for giving too much, I am afraid he cannot have listened very carefully to the speech of the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition on Second Reading, who described the case of a man known to him who had been prosecuted for selling bread 2 oz. over the prescribed weight.

LORD HAWKE

May I interrupt the noble Earl? I should very much like to know under what Act that particular prosecution was brought. I said under the Merchandise Marks Act. Under what Act was the bread prosecution brought?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

It might be that, or it might be the Sale of Food Act, 1926. Anyhow, it is the law now; and, in this Bill, Clause 23, subsections (1) and (2), enable offences in respect of overweight to be committed. My noble friend asked what the reason was. The reason is not that we want to discourage the giving of a little extra, but in order to protect the public. In certain kinds of goods it is thought desirable that they should be in certain specified weights only—say, 8 oz., 12 oz. or 16 oz.—and that no weights between these specified amounts should be permitted, because, if they were, it would be much less easy for the public to be able to see what they were getting. If they know that there are certain weights at which bread, and other commodities to which these limits apply, have to be sold, and if there is a reasonably large interval between one legal weight and the next legal weight, the purchaser can easily see which he is getting. Moreover, of course, if weights are permitted between these prescribed limits, it becomes much easier for a tradesman to sell a weight which is below and not above what the customer thinks he is getting.

The reason for the law, and the reason why a prosecution may occasionally take place, is not because we condemn the giving of too much weight but because the law, in order to prevent the giving of too little weight, prescribes that only certain weights shall be used in the sale of these commodities, and that no other weights shall be used at all. That was the information which my noble friend asked for, and as I gather from what he said that he has no intention of trying to leave out the subsection, I do not think I need say any more about the actual effect of his Amendment.

LORD LATHAM

In the light of what he has said, would the noble Earl answer this question? Does this subsection (3) do more than make certain defences available to a person who it is alleged has committed an offence in respect of an excess? It raises certain defences which I gather are not available to him at the present time under the present law.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

That is quite correct. I did not go into that because my noble friend began by saying that he had no intention of doing what his Amendment proposes to do—that is, leave out subsection (3). What in fact this subsection which the Amendment proposes to leave out does is to enable it to be pleaded as a defence, if a trader is accused of selling overweight, that the overweight is due to a reasonable expectation of loss of weight by the person who packed the article at the time it was packed.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, for having put this Amendment down, although he is certainly quite right in not intending to proceed to a Division on this Amendment to leave out subsection (3). I am very interested in this subject, and whilst, of course, we all welcome the approach made in this Bill to provide, as my noble friend Lord Latham has just said, a means of defence in the case of unreasonable prosecution, I do not know whether it is the intention to define this still further by way of Regulations. The subsection says: In any proceedings for an offence under this Part of this Act or any instrument made thereunder,… which leads us to worry, until we get a further instrument published, as to exactly what the position will be. In the case of bread, the noble Earl was kind enough to refer to my previous comments on an actual case, which I find to be extraordinary on such report of it as was made to me. That was a case in which a loaf of bread was sold at the proper price for the standard weight but which was, in fact, over the weight of that proper standard. But no higher price was charged for it—none at all. Instead of defrauding the customer, it brought him a benefit.

In my youthful days, there used to be a great deal more voluntary attention given to satisfying the customer as to correct weights and measures than today. I remember that I used to help my local milkman in the lunch-hour. That was, maybe, 64 or 65 years ago. Then, you had only cans and dippers, you were asked for half a pint (and sometimes, even, for a gill) at the door, and you were trained by the master accepting this schoolboy labour to give the measure and then to put the dipper down again and give a little more to make sure that the measurement was correct. It is only when you come to the really big combinations, apparently, that some of these questions about giving overweight arise. It is as if there is some tremendous suspicion in the mind of the Department that, in the case of a loaf of bread, there are all kinds of new mechanical devices by means of which a loaf of bread can be made to appear to he of a much larger weight than it actually is. I have never been able to understand that sort of thing.

Therefore, whilst I welcome the fact that some sort of alternative defence is to be provided under this subsection, I should like to know, if one is selling a l4 oz. Loaf at the price of a 14 oz. loaf, and with the mechanical means and automatic machinery available to-day for dividing dough and weighing it through, there is some overweight, why there should ever be the slightest desire to prosecute. I am completely unhappy about the answer given by the noble Earl, that it is to prevent fraud, which is really the essence of his answer. Again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, for moving his Amendment, but between now and the Report stage I shall myself take further advice on this matter as to whether or not we can accept this principle without further explanation.

Perhaps, in the meantime, the Department would be good enough to indicate to the trade whether any possible instrument made thereunder, as expressed, will give proper tolerances in these matters so that there cannot be any dubiety left in the mind of the trader or the customer as to whether or not there is intention to defraud. In the case I quoted, at any rate, there was a prosecution willy-nilly. The defendant society had to pay £3 costs for having done something to benefit the consumer, and I think that is absolute nonsense.

5.31 p.m.

LORD STONHAM

Before the noble Earl replies to my noble Leader, I should like to support, as strongly as I can, my noble Leader's plea for a statement by the Government as to the tolerances which they call reasonable. It would seem to me grossly unfair to traders to pass these particular clauses unless we are given an assurance that, at a later stage, something will be said by the Government, or something introduced into the Bill, to give traders an idea of just where they are. Although I was greatly interested in Lord Hawke's reasons (and in fact I guessed them in advance) for moving this particular Amendment, the noble Earl, in replying, laid, as the reason for the retention of this sub-paragraph, the greatest emphasis on the need to ensure that where there were specific weights—8 oz., 12 oz., 1 lb., or something like that—traders should not infringe those regulations by selling intermediate weights. I can well appreciate the reasons for that, and I would, indeed, support them.

But when traders do that—and they are going to do it deliberately—the defence available in this sub-paragraph is not, in most cases, available to them. This particular defence to a charge of selling overweight is almost exclusively for the use of people who have packed overweight because it is known that in a day or two days there will most certainly be a loss of weight in those particular goods. The noble Earl acknowledged that when he said that it was to meet the case where goods are packed overweight because of a reasonable expectation of a loss of weight.

The whole question, as my noble Leader indicated, lies in what is reasonable. As we all know, many commodities consist of 70 per cent. up to 90 per cent. of water, and the packer can pack such commodities to allow for 24 hours' loss of weight, which one would regard as reasonable, expecting the goods to be sold next day. However, in many cases they are not sold for two or three days. They have not necessarily lost condition but they have lost weight, and they will be below weight if the weight is ordered to be marked on the package. Inevitably that would bring a prosecution on the retailer if the goods in question are stamped goods, unless the Government can give an indication of what is reasonable in those circumstances. I do think this particular matter cannot be glossed over. It would not be honest to gloss over it, and I hope the noble Earl will say something about it.

LORD SALTOUN

I cannot very well understand how one can sell, say, bread overweight which will lead to the customer's being defrauded because he has received bread overweight, even if his eye is taught to expect too large a loaf. It seems to me that the only thing which might happen in those circumstances is that the seller could be trying to attract custom by selling a larger loaf for the same price as his neighbour, and so, perhaps, be traversing a price-fixing agreement. I think the Restrictive Practices Act has done away with price-fixing agreements, so I am rather puzzled, and inclined to agree with the noble Viscount opposite.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

Before my noble friend Lord Hawke says anything more, may I point out that, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, all that this sub-paragraph does is to enable reasonable allowance for loss of weight to be a defence against a prosecution for selling an intermediate weight between the two legally specified weights. But it is not quite true to say that a prosecution is inevitable. It is not inevitable at all. If the inspector is a reasonable man, he will be aware of the reason why this particular package is a little overweight—that it is because an allowance has to be made. As a rule, inspectors are reasonable and are on fairly good terms with traders, and do not try to bring unreasonable prosecutions. But you must have the safeguard there: that if a prosecution should be brought, such a case will be regarded as a defence.

With regard to the more general question, I do not know how far it arises on this Amendment, but, of course, nobody prosecutes anybody because he has given overweight. The reason why a prosecution is brought is that an article has been made of a quantity which is forbidden by law. The law requires specified weights to be, let us say, either 10 ozs. or 14 ozs. Your Lordships may say the law is wrong to make that requirement, but if the requirement has been made, and if it is illegal to make an article of 12 ozs., intermediate between those two weights I have mentioned, then the law has been broken. It is not a question whether you charge a 14 oz. price, in which case you would be charging too much, or a 10 oz. price, in which case you would be charging too little: the offence consists of making an article of a weight which is legally forbidden.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

Then does that not make it all the more necessary that this matter should he further considered? I do not think that answers my case at all. We on this side are all in favour of having a clause of this nature in the Bill, because its very infusion at this stage shows that there were unreasonable prosecutions in the past which the new measure wants to try to take care of in some way or other. But is it enough? Does it really give the tolerances with which trades can undertake to agree with the Department, which would enable wastage, and that kind of thing, to be used as a defence to this sort of prosecution? I am asking whether, if there are going to be instruments made under the Bill—such things as regulations covering tolerances, and other matters—we can know about it now, while the law is going through, and then we shall know where we are. I did not gather from the noble Earl that he was willing to consider that point of view and say something to us in The later stages of the Bill.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My noble friend Lord Hawke has an Amendment to one of the Schedules dealing with bread, which suggests a 2 per cent. tolerance, and perhaps it would be more appropriate to deal with these questions when we get to the part of the Bill which provides for that. But I do not agree with the noble Viscount that the clause which we are now discussing necessarily shows that unreasonable prosecutions have taken place. It is a precaution against unreasonable prosecutions taking place under this Bill in future. The fact that the inspector knows that this defence which we are providing is available should, in practically every case, deter him from bringing a prosecution where he knows that the reason for overweight is that an allowance has been made for loss of weight between the packing of the article and its sale.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I hope the noble Earl recognises that what he has just said is practically the same as saying that the prosecution I have quoted was correct, that an offence had been committed, but that the prosecution ought not to have been allowed to proceed, as a penalty was incurred. It is because of that very happening that I am pressing the matter so hard, because the case was unjustified.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

With great respect to the noble Viscount, I have no knowledge, except from what the noble Viscount said on Second Reading, of this particular bread case which he has in mind. I would certainly not express any opinion of my own on a judicial decision of that kind. Apart from the fact that I am naturally interested in anything which interests the noble Viscount, I have not the slightest interest in the matter myself one way or the other.

LORD HAWKE

I think we have stirred up something. I would accept the explanation of my noble friend willingly in connection with articles which are required to be of such a specific weight that one size cannot he muddled up with the next size up or down, but it occurs to me that this clause is going a great deal wider and appears to deal with goods mentioned in Clause 24,which deals with the sale of goods by retail which purport to be sold by weight or measure, and I should have thought that that would have brought in the butchers and everybody else. I wonder whether my noble friend would have a look at this clause to see whether he can remove the inference of prosecution from cases other than those where a specific weight is required to be written on the goods. I feel that this is what one might call an officials' Bill. One knows that the tendency of the official mind is to keep the whole population in thraldom, all in a state of having committed offences, but rarely prosecuting. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.41 p.m.

LORD DERWENT moved in subsection (4) to add to sub-paragraph (i): "in addition": The noble Lord said: In dealing with this Amendment may I have your Lordships' permission to deal with Amendments Nos. 60, 61, 62, 63 and 65 at the same time, as they all deal with the same point? If these Amendments were accepted the two sub-paragraphs of subsection (4) would read:

1. (i) if the proceedings are in respect of a single article, the court shall disregard any inconsiderable deficiency or, as the case may be, excess; and in addition
2. (ii) if the proceedings are in respect of one or more of a number of articles of the same kind, being articles which, or articles containing goods which, were sold by the person charged or in that person's possession for sale, the court shall have regard to the average quantity of, or of the goods contained in, a fair sample of all the articles and generally to all the circumstances of the case.

The Hodgson Committee recommended that defences for traders should be strengthened, and it would appear that in this clause the defences for traders have been weakened. These Amendments are designed to ensure that proceedings shall not be brought in respect of a single article where a number of articles are available and that in the case of a single article the court shall be directed to take into account all the circumstances of the case. We believe that neither of these things appears in the clause as now drafted. For those comparatively simple but important reasons we think that the trader should here have greater protection. I beg to move the first Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 28, line 35, at end insert ("in addition").—(Lord Derwent.)

LORD SPENS

I do not know whether it would be convenient to your Lordships to discuss my Amendment at the same time. It is directed to the same anticipated hardship on traders, although it treats it in a slightly different way. The existing law, which is contained in the 1926 Act, specifically directs that, after there has been a test of a number of goods on sale or offered for sale at the same time, the court shall have regard to the average weight or measure of a reasonable number of other articles of the same kind offered for sale at the same time. The clause, as it is at present worded, gives a direction only that the court shall have regard to the average quantity of, or of the goods contained in, all the articles tested… It says nothing about the rest of the articles to which the court were expressly directed to have regard under existing legislation. It leaves that out altogether.

May I take the case with which I am most familiar? Suppose there is a load of 300 milk bottles and that an inspector comes along and picks out, we will say, 10 which he thinks may be deficient in some way. If he tests them and finds, we will say, that 25 per cent. are defective, all that the court can direct its mind to, under this clause, is the result of the test of those 10 bottles. It is true that the clause end with the words, "and generally to all the circumstances of the case". Would this, in the defence which has been constantly used in these cases on behalf of traders, in which they say that only a small percentage of the total load has been tested, enable the court to have regard to the fact that there are 290 bottles which have not been tested and against which nothing has been said by the inspector? Time after time that has been a defence which has mitigated any adverse deductions which the court can draw merely from the bottles tested.

Now we have this new wording, and I think he would be a bold man who would say that an argument to the magistrates that Parliament had deliberately altered the wording and the directions given to the court about what they shall consider may not result in the magistrates' saying that they must not have regard to the fact that these 10 bottles were only part of a load of 20 or of a load of 300, and very different deductions might be drawn from that fact. My Amendment really reinstates as a direction to the court that, in addition to the result of the test, the court must also have regard to a reasonable number of articles of the same kind in that person's possession for sale or delivery on the same occasion, If this wording is accepted, there can be no doubt at all that the court can take into consideration not only the result of the limited number tested but also the proportion that that number bears to the total amount offered for sale at the time.

LORD BURDEN

May I say a word in support of the case made out by the noble Lord, Lord Spens? As he rightly says, this clause makes a substantial change in the existing law. As the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has pointed out, it goes against the recommendation of the Hodgson Committee, and I think that the Government ought to give substantial reasons why they are making this change. It is for the Government to give evidence that the existing law has proved inadequate to deal with such cases. From my experience as a local councillor, the existing law has never prevented weights and measures inspectors from taking action which they thought necessary. Surely, while in this Bill we want to catch the dishonest trader we do not want to harass unduly the honest and decent trader because of perhaps one mistake. I think that this protection is accorded by taking the result of the average in regard to a number of single articles which he may have on sale at the Same time.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

As these Amendments are largely of a legal nature I have some slight diffidence in replying to all of your Lordships who have spoken to them, but I should like to try to meet the wishes of your Lordships in this matter. The wording in the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Spens follows that in the corresponding safeguard to traders in Section 12 (1) of the 1926 Act. But that Act does not contain the provision which is contained in this Bill about the court having regard to the average quantity of all the articles tested by the inspector. I think our intention was to provide a safeguard which went wider than that in the 1926 Act by requiring the court to have regard to the entire number which that inspector had in fact tested. Under the 1926 Act the inspector could test 20 out of 50 similar articles on the trader's shelves, and finding that 10 of them were under weight he could bring proceedings solely on those 10, which could certainly be regarded as a reasonable number, in the circumstances. But he was not required to divulge to the court his findings about the other 10 which might have been perfectly all right.

Under this Bill, as it stands, he will have to lay before the court details of the full 20 tests, and the safeguard in that respect will thus go further in protecting the trader than the 1926 Act did. But what I think the Bill in its present form fails to do, and what I do not think the noble Lord's Amendment would do, is to require the inspector positively to take a reasonable number of tests in the traders premises—"a reasonable number" meaning not a certain number all on one shelf, but a fair cross-section of other articles on other shelves, to make sure that they have not been arranged for the purpose of the inspection. I think he ought to be required to do that, and that possibly the most appropriate place to insert a provision of that kind would be either in art earlier clause or in Clause 30 of the Bill.

I should like to look at this point, if the noble Lord will agree, and bring in an Amendment which will be designed to give the full protection which all your Lordships who have supported these Amendments wish to give to the trader, by ensuring that the case should rest on a reasonable number of tests and not only on either one or two, or a large number, which for some reason, such as of being in the same lot, may be an unfair sample of what the trader has in his stock.

LORD SHEPHERD

May I say that I thoroughly agree with what the noble Earl has said? I should like him to go one stage further for the trader's protection. If the trader's goods are inspected and there is a shortage of weight or measurement on certain items, and the inspector inspects a few more and there is still some deficiency, if the trader feels that his stock overall is not of that standard he should be able to ask the inspector to carry out, say, a survey of at least 50 per cent. of the mechandise. If the inspector has the right to weigh as much as he likes, if the case is going to be based on what is the average, I think the trader should have the right to expect the inspector to weigh or measure a fair percentage of his total stock. In other words, the trader should have the opportunity of requesting the inspector to survey as much as the trader wishes.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

If I have understood the noble Lord rightly, that is exactly what I wish to try to do. Anyhow, I will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT of what he has said, and will certainly bear it in mind.

LORD SILKIN

I hope that we shall not make this Bill quite unworkable. This is a Bill for the protection of the consumer and not particularly for the protection of the trader. Nobody wants to do an injustice to the trader, but we are here to protect the consumer. If a burden is placed upon the inspector of having to examine an abnormally large number of articles, as might happen in a large store, he might have to spend possibly a whole day inspecting something at the request of the trader. That would make the thing unworkable. I would much rather have some general wording than any specific quantity. I hope the noble Earl will try to hold the balance between the trader and the consumer.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

The slight difference of emphasis between the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Shepherd, illustrates the difficulty we have in doing the right thing. We will certainly do our best to achieve the best available balance.

LORD STONHAM

When the noble Earl is giving consideration to this matter, will he consider whether one possible way of handling it would be to give some definition of what in the Bill is called "inconsiderable deficiency". Clause 27 (4) (b) (i) says: If the proceedings are in respect of a single article the court shall disregard any inconsiderable deficiency or, as the case may be, excess. If the traders have what the Government regard as an inconsiderable deficiency ", and we had that defined, it would take us a much longer way along the road to understanding.

LORD SPENS

In regard to the noble Lord's last remark, it is what the court considers an "inconsiderable deficiency", not what the Government consider. It is an offence when the trader gets before the court.

LORD STONHAM

I was hoping to save the courts a lot of trouble.

LORD SPENS

With regard to the main point, I am very glad to hear what the noble Earl has said. I took just the other view from that he has indicated: that in fact the clause was cutting down the existing safeguard for traders. I gather that the noble Earl agrees that the existing clause is not very satisfactory in the way it is at present worded—there are difficulties about it—and it is only right that what was intended, and what I understand is still intended, should now be made intelligible. It is the one clause in the Bill to safeguard traders; all the rest of the Bill is for the benefit of consumers. I think the traders deserve one clause for their protection, and they deserve a clause which is reasonably clear.

LORD DERWENT

I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that what has happened in this case is that the trader has been given a little extra but, owing to rather doubtful drafting, has had taken away a little of what he had before. However, I am quite happy to leave it in my noble friend's hands. If we do not like his Amendment, thank Heaven! the next one will be a Government Amendment and we can pull it to bits. But I do not think it should be difficult for a skilled draftsman to draft now that we are apparently all on the same side. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.0 p.m.

LORD DERWENT

This is a horrible looking Amendment, but it is quite simple to explain. There appears to be no reference anywhere in the Bill to the checking of the volume of liquid by reference to temperature. A drop in temperature between the time when the liquid is despatched and the time it is delivered means a reduction in the volume of the liquid, though the weight remains the same. This Amendment is trying, in effect, to give a yardstick, so that with this decrease in volume, which is bound to take place with a lowering of temperature, both the inspector and the trader can know if the decrease in volume is due to temperature and not to short weight. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 28, line 43, at end insert— ("() In any proceedings for an offence under this Act or any instrument made thereunder being (i) an offence in connection with any deficiency or excess in the measurement by capacity of any article or (ii) an offence in connection with the testing of any equipment used for the measurement by capacity of any article the prosecution shall produce evidence of the temperature of the article at the time of the alleged offence and it shall be a defence in addition to and not in derogation from any other defence provided by this Act for the person charged to prove that the alleged offence was due to the difference between the said temperature and the temperature producing the density of distilled water described in Part IV of the First Schedule of this Act under the conditions therein set out".)—(Lord Derwent.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I do not think my noble friend meant to suggest, in moving his Amendment, that in the case of smaller flowmeters or petrol measures the present methods are unsatisfactory. They have worked very well. The inspectors' standards are made of metal. They may have different co-efficients of expansion, but at any rate with the normal variation of temperature which we get in this country errors due to the difference will be small. Inspectors have been testing deliveries of various liquids from kerbside flow-meters for a long time, and no suggestion has previously been made that provisions of the kind referred to in the Amendment were at all necessary. If they had been, the Board of Trade would have taken steps to meet the situation by means of regulations.

My noble friend may perhaps be thinking that hitherto inspectors have been concerned only with comparatively small quantities of liquids and small flow-meters, whereas under this Bill they may be called upon to test bulk deliveries where temperature differences might possibly make some appreciable difference in volume or measure. If this is so, I shall be glad to consider any evidence as to the need for provisions of this kind which could involve the preparation of correction tables for use by inspectors, or even prohibition of testing otherwise than under temperature-controlled conditions. But I think this matter ought to be considered in connection with the regulations which the Board will, in any case, have to make before the appropriate Parts of the Fifth to Ninth Schedules come into operation. That would be a more appropriate method of dealing with it than altering the wording of the Statute itself.

LORD DERWENT

If I understand my noble friend aright, if evidence is produced and he thinks, or between us we think, the evidence is good enough and that there ought to be a clause in the Bill, we could draw a clause and put it in. But if we do not want to do that, then he thinks it can be dealt with under regulation. I think that is the gist of his remarks.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

May I make it quite clear? I do not think it would be appropriate to put a clause in. What I was saying was if we had the evidence that it would be necessary, then the Board, in the regulations which they would make before the date at which this Bill comes into operation, would take account of that.

LORD DERWENT

I am obliged to my noble friend. I understand his point of view, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HAWKE moved to add to the clause: () In ascertaining the weight of any goods for the purposes of any proceedings for an offence under this Part of this Act or any instrument made thereunder, being an offence in respect of any deficiency or excess in the weight of those goods, the moisture content normally present in goods of the same class or description under normal conditions of temperature, atmospheric pressure and humidity shall be included; and in ascertaining for the purposes of this subsection the moisture content normally present in goods of any class or description, regard may be had to the provisions of any British Standard for the time being relating to goods of that class of description.

The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Barnby much regrets that he is unable to be present to move his Amendment. The Amendment deals, broadly, with goods which have a highly hygroscopic nature—that is to say, absorbing and losing moisture by evaporation dependent on temperature, humidity, and so on. Naturally, their weights are vitally affected at the point of sale. The manufacturer can be held to supply a sufficient weight to take account of this, and in the defence against a charge of underweight he has to show that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence. That might not be very difficult in the case of certain goods, but in other goods, particularly those my noble friend had in mind, such as woollen yarns, where there is a considerable degree of hygroscopicity, it is difficult to ensure a standard. A manufacturer, for instance, might be spinning in a period of great wet in the north of England, knowing perfectly well that his goods were going into a drought-stricken south-east England, and likely to stay there some time before sale. Could it be said that the resulting loss in weight was through lack of reasonable care to ascertain what that loss of weight was likely to be?

In the Amendment, we substitute some sort of standard in the matter. If there is any shortage of weight, then in ascertaining the amount of the shortage, you must compare the moisture present with what is normally present in goods of the same class or description under normal conditions of temperature, atmospheric pressure and humidity; and, where there is a British Standard for the time being, regard must be had to any provisions of that standard. I understand that the people who spin yarns are rather anxious about this point, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give the Amendment sympathetic consideration. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 28, line 43, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Hawke.)

LORD ST. OSWALD

In the last two Amendments we have gone from temperature to moisture content, and the two noble Lords sitting behind me seem to be saying that if it is not heat it is the humidity which bedevils the trader. I myself live in the same part of the world as the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, who put down this Amendment, and I am fully sympathetic to the problems of the wool textile trade. But this Amendment introduces considerable practical difficulties by being based upon the concepts of "normal" conditions of moisture content, temperature, humidity and so on. It is not easy to see how the prosecution, the defence and the courts could agree upon what should be regarded as normal "for this purpose. However, on the substance of the Amendment, it appears either to be unnecessary, in view of the defences and safeguards already set out in Clause 27, or else, if it is designed to give traders a wider sanction than those defences allow, to be liable to weaken seriously the protection of the consumer.

Subsection (2) of Clause 27 gives the trader a defence if his goods lose weight for any reason for which he could not make reasonable allowance at the time when determining the quantity to be declared by him in respect of them. For example, it defends the trader where there is an unexpected and exceptional evaporation loss, if he can prove to the court that he had made a reasonable allowance for the normal and expected evaporation loss when marking the weight on the container. This defence would appear to meet satisfactorily one aspect of the matters touched on in the Amendment. If, however, my noble friend is suggesting that there should be a defence, based upon some concept of "normal" conditions of moisture content, humidity and so on, for a trader who marks a pre-pack with a weight which he knows may not be correct by the time the goods reach the shops, then the Government must declare their belief that this would strike at the very roots of the protection this Bill attempts to give the public.

Again, subsection (3) of Clause 27 gives the trader a defence if his goods gain weight unexpectedly during distribution. An offence of giving excess weight can, of course, arise under the Bill only in respect of those limited classes of goods which are required to be pre-packed or made for sale in a range of specified weights only. However, for this limited class of goods the defence in subsection (3), which still stands, despite my noble friend Lord Hawke's efforts to do away with it a few minutes ago, should meet the other aspect of the matters touched on in the Amendment. This is because an unexpected gain in weight could equally well be followed, still before the goods reached the shops, by a corresponding reduction in weight, if the temperature or humidity conditions changed back again; and the trader should easily be able to establish that it was reasonable and necessary for him to pack the amount of goods that he in fact did, in order to avoid the quantity becoming deficient at any subsequent time.

If the noble Lord is suggesting that a trader, knowing perfectly well that one or other of these limited classes of goods inevitably gains weight on its way to the shops, should have a defence based on some concept of "normal" conditions which were different from the conditions which would obtain at the time of retail sale, then his Amendment would undermine the protection given to the public by the requirement to pre-pack in specified weights only. This again the Government could not accept. If the noble Lord refers to semi-processed or other goods being sold to a manufacturer, I would point out that the short-weight provision of Clause 25 will not "bite" anyway, due to the exemptions under subsection (7) discussed earlier.

LORD HAWKE

Would the noble Lord say something about British Standards, which are mentioned in the Amendment.

LORD ST. OSWALD

I should like to look at the noble Lord's suggestion on standards. I am afraid that I am not in a position to say anything about it at the moment, but I will contact my noble friend later on the point be raised.

LORD HAWKE

I was interested to hear my noble friend's explanation, and I am glad to hear indirectly that the offence of giving overweight happens only in the case of pre-packed goods. We might have heard that earlier, I think. The spinners, particularly of woollen yarns, will read his reply with interest and we shall be able to see at the next stage of the Bill whether they consider they will have adequate defence against the variations of our climate.

6.13 p.m.

LORD STONHAM

May I put one point to the noble Lord. He said—and I agree—that there could be no defence when a trader, at the time the goods reach the shop, marks with a weight which he knows may not be correct. Everybody would agree that would be an offence which should be punishable. I should like him to deal with the point which was made in regard to wool textiles (and they are not the only goods with which it can occur), that the inspector does not necessarily call at the moment when the goods reach the shop. He may call days after, and the trader, the processor or the packer, cannot possibly know the conditions of humidity and so on at the time of sale. He cannot possibly know precisely when the goods are going to be sold, and therefore he cannot guard against continuing losses of weight in those kinds of goods where loss is continuous through evaporation. He can pack in such a way that at the time the goods reach the shop they are the correct weight, but he cannot—and no one can—guarantee that at the time and place they are sold they will be the correct weight.

It therefore seems to me that Lord Hawke's suggestion could be of very considerable value. And surely it is a safeguard that should not be dispensed with simply because it may he somewhat difficult of application. After all, if it is just that this should be considered, the mere difficulty of application of this safeguard should not apply. I would ask the noble Lord, therefore, to realise that it is not only the moment the goods reach the shop that matters; it is also the moment when the inspector calls to look at them. And, in my view, Clause 27 does not in all circumstances provide an adequate safeguard to the trader.

LORD ST. OSWALD

As often before, the noble Lord baffles me with science. As I understand it, this loss of weight through evaporation is not a continuous process which goes on ad infinitum. As I understand it, when the weather changes the substance can gain weight again. The picture he has given is of a substance, such as a textile, losing weight continuously and never gaining weight. I will naturally, as always, look with great interest at what he said, and I will take it up with those who know a great deal more about it than I do. But my first reaction to his remarks is that this is not, as he seemed to describe it, a continuous process.

LORD STONHAM

I was not trying to baffle the noble Lord with science, because I am not scientific. But perhaps he will accept that if goods have a high moisture content and go from a humid atmosphere into a dry atmosphere they must lose more weight on the second day than they lose on the first; that is perfectly obvious. Will he, in his consideration of these matters, consider not only wool textiles but the vast range of other commodities which do lose weight by evaporation the longer they are kept, because they are the ones about which traders are mostly concerned?

LORD ST. OSWALD

I have a more precise answer to the noble Lord. If the goods are short when found in the shop the inspector first considers whether the shortage occurred in the shop. If so, the shopkeeper has committed an offence. If it was the packer's responsibility, Clause 28 enables the offence to be taken back to the packer, so that the loss of weight is not considered as if it must have happened entirely in the shop. It is taken into account that the process may have started from the packing stage.

LORD STONHAM

Can the noble Lord say bow the inspector knows whether the loss of weight occurred before or after the goods reached the shop?

LORD ST. OSWALD

Presumably he cannot say by looking at them, by a spot judgment. He has to look into the circumstances—the date when they were packed, the distance they have travelled and various other circumstances. That is my own impression.

LORD HAWKE

I think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has made the point very much better than I could have done. I would emphasise that the point the spinners fear is that their goods may be put in a shop window, exposed to violent sunshine and lose weight very heavily, in which case they would be held to blame; and that is why the question of the British Standards specification comes in with particular reference to that type of goods. My noble friend has promised to look into this British Standards specification, and I hope that he may be able to provide a defence based on those lines for goods which have such a specification of moisture content et cetera. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27 agreed to.

Clauses 28 and 29 agreed to.

Clause 30 [Special powers of inspector with respect to certain goods]:

6.19 p.m.

LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "sale" to insert: or carried on any vehicle or otherwise for delivery on sale".

The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 67A. It may be to the convenience of your Lordships if the next three Amendments are taken at the same time, as they all run together and with the first. Clause 30, as your Lordships will know, provides for special powers of the inspector with respect to certain goods, and the Amendment on the Paper is to close what is thought to be a gap in the language of the clause as appearing in the Bill. It will be observed that the goods may not be offered or exposed for sale, but may be inside a vehicle and subsequently sold during the course of the vehicle's journey. This applies particularly to coal. As I have said, the Amendments are intended to cover such circumstances or such a situation. As at present drafted, if the coal dealer is carrying coal which has not been ordered but which he may dispose of during the course of his round, it would seem to me that the clause does not apply, and it is important that it should apply. I ask the noble Earl whether this obvious gap can be closed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 30, line 25, after ("sale") insert the said words.—(Lord Latham.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

The words which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, proposes to insert, "for delivery on sale", are a term which is used in the Weights and Measures Act, 1889, in relation to transactions in coal, which he particularly mentioned in his remarks; and it means delivery to the buyer in pursuance of a sale to him—that is to say, where the goods are sold to him and have been appropriated to that purpose. In this Bill the same language is not used. I have looked carefully at the noble Lord's Amendment. It seems to me that, although the Bill does not repeat these words, it uses words which cover the same circumstances—for instance, paragraph (a) of subsection (1) covers "any goods offered or exposed for sale". If the goods are being offered or exposed for sale when they are being carried on a vehicle—for example, coal sacks on a hawker's car—this paragraph covers them already, and I do not think there would be any need to mention a vehicle specifically.

LORD LATHAM

May I intervene on that point? What happens if it is a closed vehicle? The coal is not then exposed for sale.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I think that the paragraph covers them already—"any goods offered or exposed for sale." I do not think that there is any need to mention a vehicle specifically, because, by definition, the goods cannot yet have been sold; there cannot be any "delivery on sale" which would be relevant to this paragraph. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of this subsection both specify goods "in the course of delivery to the buyer." I think that fully covers "delivery on sale" and" carriage for delivery on sale" whether the vehicle is open or closed. I think the point is covered already.

LORD LATHAM

The noble Earl said that the language of an earlier Statute had been abandoned and new language incorporated in this Bill. Was it the case, then, that the language of the earlier enactment was regarded as being unsatisfactory; and, if so, in what respect? I would point out that coal which is in a closed van is not only not exposed for sale, but is not necessarily offered for sale.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

It is being carried. Paragraph (c) specifies goods "in the course of delivery to the buyer." I think that covers goods in a closed vehicle. As for the language of the 1889 Act, with particular reference to coal, I did not suggest that the words had been unsatisfactory. What I think is the case is that the new wards in the Bill are a little more satisfactory.

LORD SHEPHERD

Can the noble Earl give me an explanation? Suppose coal has been ordered for delivery and is being delivered to the consumer's house by a vehicle. Have the goods at that stage been sold, or are they on offer? The point that I am trying to raise in support of my noble friend is that if those goods are on the vehicle and the customer complains and is fortunate enough to get an inspector to come and inspect the goods, as the Bill is now before us I imagine that he could not examine and weigh those goods on the vehicle. I should have thought that if my noble friend's words were inserted it would then be possible, if the consumer raised an abjection and was fortunate enough to get an inspector to came and weigh the goods, that those goods could be weighed on the vehicle and it could be established whether an offence had been committed.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I will look into that point, but it does not seem to me that the words of the noble Lord's Amendment would give any greater protection than those already in the Bill. Where coal is travelling in a closed vehicle to a place at which it is to be sold, it is in the trader's possession or charge for sale and is covered by Clause 30 (1) (c). If it has been ordered already by telephone I do not think the sale has yet been concluded.

LORD LATHAM

I should like to make this point. It is unimportant as to whether, in this connection, the words suggested in my Amendment are no better than those in the Bill. The point is, are the words in the Bill satisfactory to close this gap which can give rise to abuse and avoidance? That is the point.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

That is exactly what I have been trying, I know in a most inadequate way, to convince your Lordships of for the last ten minutes.

LORD LATHAM

Would the noble Earl be good enough to look into the matter in order to make assurance doubly sure? In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LATHAM

The purpose of this Amendment is to enable the inspector to secure the co-operation of the persons in charge of goods under the terms of the clause, and to strengthen the language of the clause. Obviously, if such persons are difficult, the inspector may be unable to perform his duties under the clause, and it is thought to be desirable that he should be able to rely upon authority such as that which would be given to him by the words of this Amendment. When considering this Amendment I thought that perhaps Clause 49 might provide the additional powers, but I am not satisfied that it does, and I think it would improve the Bill if the Amendment were accepted. I hope that the noble Earl may find himself able to do so. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 31, line 9, at end insert ("and such person shall afford the inspector such facilities and assistance as he may reasonably require for these purposes").—(Lord Latham.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

This Amendment relates to subsection (l) of Clause 30 which is concerned with specifying the special powers given to inspectors to enable them adequately to enforce the provisions in Part IV of the Bill relating to transactions in goods and in particular with empowering the inspector to weigh or measure the goods, to weigh their containers and, if necessary, to break open any containers in which goods are packed; and the Amendment seeks to insert in this clause an obligation upon the trader to give the inspector reasonable facilities and assistance for these purposes.

The noble Lord, Lord Latham, was good enough to consider whether this might already be covered by Clause 49. I would not say it was, but I would submit to your Lordships and the noble Lord that it is fully covered by the following clause (Clause 50) which deals with the question of assistance which the trader should be obliged to give the inspector for these purposes. Subsection (1) of that clause makes it an offence wilfully to obstruct an inspector or to fail wilfully to comply with any requirement an inspector may properly make in the execution of his duties under Clause 30 and, without reasonable cause, to fail to give the inspector such other assistance as the inspector may reasonably ask of him in carrying out his duties under Clause 30, or, indeed, under any other clause in the Bill. I believe those provisions in Clause 50 appear to meet fully the objective of the noble Lord.

LORD LATHAM

I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I agree that the words referred to in Clause 50 meet the point I had in mind. The noble Earl will not be unaware that there is another Amendment dealing with Clause 50 in another connection; but, having regard to the provisions of that clause in relation to the point I have just made, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 30 agreed to.

Clause 31:

Powers of inspector with respect to certain documents.

31.—(1) An inspector, subject to the production if so requested of his credentials, may require the person in charge of any document required by or under this Part of this Act to be associated with any goods to produce that document for inspection.

LORD LATHAM moved in subsection (1) after "document" where that word occurs a first time, to insert "relating to quantity". The noble Lord said: Clause 31 deals with documents, and this first Amendment has for its purpose a strengthening of the provisions of the clause; and the further Amendment will do likewise. Clause 31 enables an inspector to require the person in charge of any document required by or under Part IV of the Act to be associated with goods to produce the document for inspection, or to seize and detain it if it contains a false statement, or to endorse it with particulars of the inaccuracy. The requirements for documents to be associated with goods relate only—and this is important—to such goods as are specified in the Fifth to Ninth Schedules of the Bill.

There are, however, many common transactions in terms of weight, measure or number in goods not included in these Schedules. Among such transactions are the sale of screws, normally sold by the gross—and I should imagine that the demand for screws has very sensibly increased recently as a result of the expansion of the "Do it yourself" doctrine. Then there are organic fertilisers which are sold in a bag by weight. I should think that the growth of interest in gardens, with the stimulus of chemical manufacturing companies, has certainly increased the demand for, and the sale of, organic fertilisers. There are sheets and blankets which are sold by measure, as are carpets. There are blocks of ice sold by weight and clothes lines sold by length. On the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill I gave the House an instance of shortage in length of certain clothes lines in respect of which a trader was successfully prosecuted.

Since the giving of short weight or short number or the making of misrepresentation in respect thereof is to be a general offence, it is considered that the powers of any inspector of weights and measures in relation to documents should be extended so as to cover any document relating to goods, irrespective of whether or not the goods are scheduled. The purpose of the Amendment is to extend the power of the inspector and therefore the protection which will be given to the consumer. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 31, line 43, after ("document") insert ("relating to quantity").—(Lord Latham.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

This Amendment and the next relate to subsection (1) of Clause 31 which as at present drafted, gives inspectors of weights and measures certain special powers to examine, and if necessary to seize or endorse, any documents which are specifically required by the Bill, or by orders made under Clause 22, to be associated with particular classes of goods and to be delivered to the buyer. The nature of the documents which are required under the Bill to be associated with goods is fairly precisely defined. The most general class of such documents is dealt with in Clause 24, which prescribes a simple statement in writing as to the quantity; slightly more elaborate forms of document are prescribed in the Sixth and Seventh Schedules, which require certain additional information to be inserted, such as the name and address of the buyer and seller and the precise nature of the goods to which the documents refer.

The present Amendment would, however, confer upon inspectors of weights and measures the power to examine and seize any other documents which the person concerned happened to be carrying at the time and which related to the quantity of the goods, irrespective of whether these documents were intended to be delivered to the buyer. This would enable inspectors to seize documents in the possession of a vanman which are intended purely for internal business use by the seller and which the seller was not required under the Bill either to carry with the goods or to deliver to the buyer. Documents of that kind could, by chance, be in his or his vanman's possession when the inspector met him. If noble Lords take the view that the nature of any of the documents required by the Bill to be associated with particular goods is inadequately defined, or if they doubt the inspectors' ability to obtain copies of records kepts at public weighbridges, the Government will be glad to consider on their merits any suggestions for any Amendments designed to remedy such deficiencies; but we cannot accept a proposal on the lines of the present Amendment which would confer upon inspectors such a very sweeping and arbitrary power.

LORD LATHAM

Apparently I did not make it clear that the Amendment does not relate to the type of documents but to the goods in respect of which, under my Amendment, there must be or would be documents. Our complaint is that there are goods which I cited, and many others, which are exempt from the provisions, whether in the clause or in the Fifth to Ninth Schedules. The purpose of this Amendment is to bring all goods within the obligations of documentation. That is quite different, as I understood it, from the point the noble Earl was answering. He was answering a case I have not put up yet.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

It is not a question of the goods but of documents, because the Amendment empowers the inspector to take possession of any other documents relating to the quantity of goods. That would include documents of all kinds which relate to the quantity of the goods but which the seller is not required by law to carry and which he did not intend to deliver to the buyer. There might be correspondence of all kinds, or catalogues which relate to the quantity of goods but which are a private affair between the sellers and agents, which are not intended to be delivered to anybody else and which are not required under this Bill to be delivered. The effect of the Amendment would enable the inspector to take possession of documents of these kinds. We think that this is too sweeping a power. We are willing to consider any deficiencies in the existing provisions of the Bill, which clearly defines the kind of document of which the inspector is able to take possession.

LORD LATHAM

We are not ad idem. There are certain cases in respect of which documents can be prescribed under the Fifth to Ninth Schedules. I am not suggesting that with regard to those goods there will be additional documentation. What the Amendment suggests is that other goods shall be brought within the requirement of having documents. Presumably those documents would be no more unrelated than the documents prescribed in respect of certain prescribed goods under the Fifth to Ninth Schedules. Is it the point that there would be correspondence or letters in connection with the goods which I am suggesting should be brought within the Schedules, such as screws or organic fertilisers, whereas there will not be correspondence as a part of documents relating to the goods which are at present provided for within the Schedules? The point is: why cannot the application of this requirement be extended in the manner in which I have indicated?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I quite see the noble Lord's point. What he wants is to bring in other kinds of goods under this requirement. But what his Amend- ment would do is enable the inspector to take possession of other documents relating to goods which are already covered by the Bill, although the documents are not at present required by the Bill to be carried. They might be of a purely private nature, and we do not think it would be right to empower the inspector to seize them.

LORD FARINGDON

I still do not think that the noble Earl has taken the point. I have been looking at this Schedule just this minute, and there are, for example, cleansing powders and scouring powders included. What we have asked is that not only scouring powders and the other things included in the Fifth to Ninth Schedules should require documents; but the carpets that my noble friend spoke of, or the nails, or all the other things he mentioned, should also require documents; and that, those documents being required, as documents will be in any case regarding the scouring powders, they can be demanded and treated by the inspector as provided for in this clause. With great respect, it does not seem to me to raise the question of looking at private documents or any other documents that happen to be on the vehicle. It is only to do with extending the number of articles which will require to have documents attached to them. Surely that is the point.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

The noble Lord may be looking at the Fifth Schedule. I am looking at Clause 31, Powers of inspector with respect to certain documents. This clause is not concerned with requirements as to documentation, but simply with the rights of the inspector to inspect documents—rights which are laid down elsewhere.

LORD FARINGDON

Would the noble Earl suggest that in order to bring these other articles within the scope of this Bill, and in order to require them to have documents, we should perhaps put down an Amendment to one of the Schedules and bring the documents into that?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

Yes.

LORD LATHAM

If that be the procedure to be followed, it shall be followed. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 31 agreed to.

Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to.

6.45 p.m.

Clause 34 [Making quantity known to, and weighing in presence of, persons]:

LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (1) after "Act", where that word first occurs, to insert: ,subject to the provisions of paragraph 4 (c) of Part VII and of paragraph 1 (c) of Part XI of the Fifth Schedule to this Act,". The noble Lord said: Clause 34 lays on the seller an obligation to make known to the buyer the quantity of the goods sold, and he must do it by weight, measurement or number. He must do it in the buyer's presence, or deliver in a container marked with the quantity purporting to be delivered; or he must furnish a written statement containing the necessary information. Paragraph 4 (c) in Part VII of the Fifth Schedule expressly permits sales of goods in containers where the contents are clearly visible—sales of up to six articles. It does not require them to be sold by weight; it does not require production of a written document; and it does not require them to be marked with the number. It would therefore seem that the words of Clause 34 do not apply to those particular transactions which are permitted under paragraph 4 (c) of Part VII of the Fifth Schedule. If that is so, and if it is not covered elsewhere in the Bill (and the noble Earl may tell me that it is), it would seem that after the word "Act" we must insert words drawing attention to that fact; and that is what the Amendment proposes to do.

The noble Earl will see that I have included in the Amendment a reference to paragraph 1 (c) of Part XI of the Fifth Schedule, which requires packages of shell eggs to be marked with a number and therefore would come, as it now stands, under the provision of Clause 34. But I am hoping that at a later stage the Government will accept an Amendment which I hope to move so that the requirement for shell eggs shall not apply until the number of eggs in the packet exceeds six, provided, of course, that the contents are in a package which leaves them clearly visible to the buyer. It is with that in mind that I venture to include in this Amendment a reference to that paragraph 1 (c). I hope that I have made my meaning clear to the noble Earl and that he will be able to assure me either that the point is covered somewhere else in the Bill (it obviously is not covered in Clause 34) or that he will accept the Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 33, line 7, after ("Act") insert the said words.—(Lord Stonham.)

6.50 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, seemed to be in some little doubt as to what Clause 34 actually does, The clause does not in itself impose any requirements upon transactions in any particular goods. All it does, in the three paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), is to specify three of the possible ways in which a seller can fulfil the obligations imposed upon him by the various provisions in the Bill to make the quantity of goods known to the buyer. The quantity is to be deemed to have been made known,

1. "(a) if the goods are weighed or otherwise measured or counted in the presence of the buyer; or
2. (b) if the goods are delivered to the buyer in a container marked with the quantity purported to be sold; or
3. (c) upon delivery to the buyer of any document required by or under this Act to be associated with, and to contain a statement of the quantity or, the goods."

This clause is purely declaratory or explanatory. It clearly states that the specification of the three ways of making the quantity known is entirely without prejudice to any other means of actually making it known which the seller may wish to employ. I do not think the noble Lord's Amendment could have any effect on the subsection, and I do not think it would effect any saving for the particular exempting, provisions of the Fifth Schedule to which he referred. But if it has enabled him to draw your Lordships' attention to subsequent Amendments which he intends to move, the noble Lord's Amendment has, nevertheless, served a useful purpose.

LORD STONHAM

I need hardly assure your Lordships that it was not raised for that reason, but out of a genuine belief, which is still not entirely dispelled, that it was a necessary Amendment. The noble Earl recounted, as I did, the three provisions which are in this subsection; the three ways of making known the weight or contents of the goods. But, as I pointed out, none of those three ways applies to the particular case which is permitted in paragraph 4 (c) of Part VII of the Fifth Schedule. I therefore have to ask him whether the words in Clause 34, without prejudice to any other means of making known to the buyer, cover the particular case which I have cited; because my impression is that merely exposing goods for sale in a manner in which they can be clearly seen is not a positive action in making them known to the buyer. But if the noble Earl assures me that it is so regarded, and that paragraph 4 (c) is still perfectly in order despite this Government clause, then I shall, of course, be perfectly satisfied.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

Yes, I really think that it is without prejudice to any other means of actually making it known which the seller may wish to employ.

LORD STONHAM

I am very grateful for that assurance, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 34 agreed to.

Clause 35 [Local weights and measures authorities in England and Wales]:

6.54 p.m.

LORD BURDEN

This Amendment and the two subsequent Amendments are, of course, linked. The suggestion—and this is what I would put to the noble Earl—is that the dates specified in subsection (3) for prescribing the end of the period during which certain non-county boroughs cease to be weights and measures authorities may prove in actual practice to be too early, particularly having regard to the work of the Local Government Commission for England and Wales. There may be changes in population and in the status of boroughs, and it is therefore suggested in these Amendments that the Board of Trade should have power, if necessary, to appoint later dates than those set forth in the Bill. The Amendments are designed to help in the working of the Bill, and they are moved in that spirit. I beg to move the first Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 34, line 10, at end insert ("or in either case, such later date as the Board may by order appoint").—(Lord Burden.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

This is a slightly difficult question, which it may be the Government have made more difficult by trying to find some compromise between what the Hodgson Committee recommended and what the noble Lord would prefer. The Hodgson Committee recommended that only counties and county boroughs should be weights and measures authorities, and they even advocated that the smaller ones among these authorities should combine for all weights and measures purposes. There is a great deal to be said for that course, in the interests of both economic and efficient administration. It is not a question of the smaller authorities being inefficient in any way, but that, particularly as trade is conducted more and more on a national or regional basis, the enforcement by bigger units becomes in itself more efficient. To-day we have traders and manufacturers operating over wide areas with fewer authorities to deal with, and the establishment of local offices by the local authorities ensure that enforcement is not remote from the consumers. It is also in the interests of business and consumer alike that the standard of enforcement should be uniform over fairly wide areas.

But, in spite of these considerations, the Government decided not to accept the Hodgson Committee's view, and the Bill provides for a large number of non-county boroughs and urban districts to exercise the function if they so wish. By no means all the authorities which have been entitled to the function in the past have, in fact, exercised it. They have often combined with other authorities, or sometimes ceded the function to the county; but there are some non-county boroughs which are attached to the exercise of this function, and the Bill enables any non-county borough or urban district with a population greater than 60,000 to be a weights and measures authority if it so wishes. It goes even further by enabling the Board to make orders by which non-county boroughs and urban districts with a population below that figure may, in special circumstances, be enabled to act as weights and measures authorities. So, in both these respects, what we are proposing in the Bill constitutes a considerable "watering down" of the Hodgson Committee's recommendations.

We thought this was the best compromise we could make between the arguments for the county and county boroughs only, on the one hand, and the need to keep a lively civic organisation in the smaller units of local government, on the other. Of course, like all compromise solutions, it can be shown to open the possibility of some illogical developments. We admit that the combined operation of the Local Government Act, 1958, and this Bill could produce a situation in which an authority ceased to be a weights and measures authority and then, later on, owing to an increase of population as a result of a boundary change, regained the right to be one.

Having created these possible causes of uncertainty as to who were going to be weights and measures authorities, it is desirable to try to limit the period of uncertainty. I would suggest to the noble Lord that the limits in this Bill—that is to say, until 1963 before an authority relinquishes its functions; until 1964 until an appeal can be lodged for special consideration for an Order by the Board of Trade; and then until 1965 until the new authority can actually be conferred by the Board of Trade—are as far ahead as we reasonably ought to go. I think that if we were to enable the definition and settlement of weights and measures authorities to be delayed still further, and that if we were to prolong the period of uncertainty, we should not be making the best compromise we could, and which we have tried to do under the Bill.

LORD BURDEN

I am obliged to the noble Earl for the explanation of the Government's point of view. With regard to the compromise, I quite agree with what the Government is doing in regard to authorities who are to be weights and measures authorities under the Bill. The only object of the Amendment was to try to get the Government out of some difficulties which might arise, as the noble Earl himself implied was conceivably possible, owing to the operations of the change in population or the activities of the Local Government Commission. However, if the Minister is satisfied that he has got sufficient elbow room without the Amendments that I propose, then it is not for me to press them any further. Obviously, the Amendments were trying to help the Board of Trade in the circumstances which the Minister indicated at the end of his speech. In those circumstances, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 35 agreed to.

Clause 36 [Local weights and measures authorities in metropolitan area and in Isles of Scilly]:

LORD LATHAM moved., after subsection (2) to insert: (3) Before making any order under subsection (2) of this section the Board shall consult with and consider any representations, with respect to the subject matter of the order, made to the Board by the local authorities concerned. The noble Lord said: Clause No. 36 deals with authorities. The rubric is rather engaging, I think. It says: Local weights and measures authorities in metropolitan area and in Isles of Scilly". Most civil of them, I think! It is an engaging prospect that the Isles of Scilly will become one of the Greater London boroughs under the proposals of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London. Quite an entertaining prospect! However, Clause 35 deals with the local weights and measures authorities, and., as the noble Earl has said, county and county borough councils will be the authorities during the transitional period, as a saving for existing borough authorities.

Clause 36 provides that Clause 35 shall not apply to the metropolitan area—that is, Greater London—but that: The Board may by order…direct that all or any of the provisions of the said section thirty-five shall, subject to such exceptions, adaptations and modifications, if any, as may be specified in the order, extend to the metropolitan area or any part of it". The purpose of the Amendment is that the Board should be required, before making any order, to consult the local authorities which will be affected by the order, and thus accord with the general principles of consultation between Government Departments and local authorities. Moreover, as the noble Earl will no doubt be aware, there is provision in Clause 35 (5) (b) for consultation, and there is likewise provision in Clause 55 (2) for consultation. The purpose of this Amendment, which I sincerely hope the noble Earl will be able to accept on behalf of the Government, is to require that there should be consultation with the local authorities before any steps are taken by the Board under the provisions of Clause 35 or otherwise. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 35, line 43, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Latham.)

7.5 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

The noble Lord has correctly stated the privileged position accorded to the Isle of Scilly and to the metropolitan area of London under this Bill. It directs that the provisions of the Bill in respect to the other areas are to apply to the London area, with or without appropriate modifications. The contents of any order will depend on such decisions as may be made about the local government structure in the metropolitan area after the Government have considered the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London. The noble Lord's Amendment seeks to make Consultation between the Board of Trade and local authorities in the metropolitan area mandatory upon the Board.

It may be that provisions for responsibility for the weights and measures function in the metropolitan area could best be included in any general metropolitan area legislation that may prove to be necessary, and that it would be better not to introduce it by itself. But if the weights and measures function is to be dealt with separately from other legislation—that is to say, if it is to be dealt with under the powers given in this clause—I can assure the noble Lord that no order would be made under subsection (2) of the clause without consultation between the Board and all local interests which are likely to be affected.

But there is one reason against making the consultations statutory: that the necessary consultation might best be conducted in a much wider circle so as to cover a much greater number of functions at one time, a much wider field of discussion. And it might jeopardise proper consideration of the whole question, to the prejudice of all concerned, if consultation on weights and measures had to be kept separate, as it almost certainly would in order that a statutory requirement could be seen to be observed. In other words, if consultations on weights and measures were taken out of the general field of wider consultations which will result from the Royal Commission, it might be to the disadvantage of everybody concerned in those consultations. It might suit everybody far better to take them together, but they would have to be taken out if there were statutory provision in this Bill to that effect. But if we do have to act under the Bill, I can assure the noble Lord, on behalf of the Government, that consultation will take place.

LORD LATHAM

I am obliged and grateful to the noble Earl for the assurance he has given. But one can only deduce from what he has said that the application of the provisions of this Bill, When it becomes an Act, to the metropolitan area will follow, and not precede, the legislation, if there is to be any, in connection with Greater London local government. Is that so?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

The consultations which lead up to the general legislation may include consultation about weights and measures functions and I think that would possibly be to the advantage of everybody. It would not necessarily mean that the arrangement of weights and measures functions would have to wait in order to be included with other legislation, but it might be that consultation upon them would be much more effective if carried out at the same time.

LORD LATHAM

I will not offer any prospective appreciation or otherwise of the value of consultations which may ensue from the Royal Commission's Report but I gather that the situation in the metropolitan area will remain for the most part what it is pending such consultations as may be decided upon in connection with the general question of local government in the metropolitan area, and 'that, if that be not the case and the Government proceed to change the present situation under this Bill, then consultation Will take place. I am much obliged to the noble Earl and in those circumstances beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HAWKE

The City of Winchester, Which is not a county borough, is nervous about losing its place as a weights and measures authority. It is probably the oldest weights and measures authority in the country. It has the set of weights of King Edward III, the bushels of King Edgar and the yard of Henry VII. I think that it would come very properly from my noble friend, considering the many years he spent at Winchester—and from observation they appear to me to have been very happy years—that the City of Winchester should receive some sort of assurance that their case is the very case Her Majesty's Government had in mind when providing under Clause 35 various methods by which non-county boroughs can remain weights and measures authorities if they wish to do so. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 35, line 48, at end insert— ("() Section thirty-five of this Act shall not apply to the City of Winchester.")—(Lord Hawke.)

7.13 p.m.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I should like to warn the noble Lord, who has been most helpful on this Bill, that he has raised a very controversial question. In your Lordships' House and certainly in another place, there are many who are devoted to the existing administrative arrangements for weights and measures in the boroughs with which they are connected. The not subtle but open approach to the Minister who is to reply, on the basis that he had a long connection with Winchester School, does not seem to me to be very apposite. There are many Members of this House, with all kinds of qualifications, who have tender municipal recollections. I was born, a working-class boy, in Weston-super-Mare, which has a population of over 42,000, and I am the No. 1 Freeman of the Borough. It has always been a weights and measures authority. I should think that I have an equally good claim to put in a special plea for my borough as the noble Lord has to make a special request for the City of Winchester—certainly a bettor plea than that the noble Earl, who is a very popular Member of your Lordships' House, went to school there.

The noble Lord mentioned the ancient weights and measures at Winchester. I, myself, am a past Master of the Worshipful Company of Bakers, which has continued for some 800 years what is called the Assize of Bread. If we go on extending our researches into what are the dividing lines between those authorities who would qualify under the Bill for inclusion as a separate weights and measures authority, we may get into deep waters. Of course, we should be delighted to see the noble Earl get up and make a speech defending the prior claim of Winchester and its weights and measures. He is such a master of words that I am sure that he would be able to make a pleasant speech. But if he starts on that way, I can promise him a long journey through our municipal museums.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

It is with bitter sorrow that I rise to reply to my noble friend's Amendment. In a sense, my noble friend and I were exact contemporaries at Winchester for five years, but it is my duty to say that, although my noble friend hoped that Winchester might have been one of the places which had been in the mind of the Government when they arranged for non-county boroughs with less than 60,000 people to apply for special consideration by the Board of Trade, and although perhaps it might have been, it would have been quite improper for the Government to express any view about whether any non-county borough with a population likely to be below 60,000 on June 30, 1961, should or should not have weights and measures functions conferred on it by the Board of Trade. If we did, we can see what would happen. We should immediately arouse the violent jealousy of Weston-super-Mare and no doubt of a large number of other places all over the country which have a larger population than that of Winchester, which I am sorry to say is only 27,000 compared with the 42,000 of Western-super-Mare.

The reason for my noble friend's Amendment, which seeks to circumvent the normal arrangements in the case of Winchester, is because it is such a very ancient city, the old capital of Wessex and the centre of the ancient weights and measures of that part of the country. Although it is a weights and measures authority under the present law, it is actually in combination with the county of Hampshire for all the purposes of the existing Weights and Measures Acts. The provisions of Clause 35 will make it necessary for Winchester Corporation to lodge a claim, if they wish to retain this function. If the Corporation do so and the appeal is unsuccessful, then the present combination, by virtue of subsection (3) of Clause 38, will cease to have effect. That would have no practical effect on the existing provision, because the job of carrying out weights and measures functions would continue to be performed by the county of Hampshire with exactly the same inspectors and same staff as now; but, of course, Winchester would lose the nominal status which it has had for centuries. If, on the other hand, their claim is successful, the present arrangement would then continue undisturbed.

I can do no more than give that factual statement of the case. I am afraid that I cannot indicate any possible action which the Government may take with regard either to Winchester or Westonsuper-Mare or any other non-county borough with a population under 60,000. Every one of them which wishes to appeal must have its case considered on its merits.

LORD HAWKE

I thank my noble friend for his reply, from which I think the City of Winchester as well as other non-county boroughs will take some comfort. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 36 agreed to.

Clauses 37 and 38 agreed to.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

The last thing I should want to do would be to prevent the noble Lord, Lord Burden, from moving the next Amendment, but it occurred to me, as it is now twenty past seven and as we have made good progress, having got to the end of Clause 38, that this might be the time when your Lordships would like to adjourn the Committee. If that is agreeable, I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved, That the House do now resume.—(The Earl of Dundee.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past seven o'clock.