Lords Sitting of 15 December 1960

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester

JUDICIAL BUSINESS (LEGAL AID)
2.35 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR) had given Notice of two Amendments to the Standing Orders relating to Judicial Business. The first was to move the following as a new Standing Order:
"Where a party to an appeal has applied to an Area Committee for legal aid, and the decision of the Committee has not been announced before the expiration of the periods of time limited by Standing Orders Nos. II, V or VI, such periods of time shall be extended until one week after the refusal of the application or the issue of a certificate."
The second was to move, as an Amendment to Standing Order No. V, after paragraph (3) to insert:
"(4) This Standing Order shall not apply to Appellants who have been granted legal aid."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, the object of the two Amendments which I am to move is to adapt the Judicial procedure of your Lordships' House to make it convenient for legal aid cases. Legal aid has been available for House of Lords appeals since the beginning of this month. I hope that your Lordships will not mind if I ask the indulgence of the House to let me trespass for a short time on the Business of the House, because this raises somewhat wider questions of legal aid which I should like to put before your Lordships.
Standing Orders II, V and VI, which govern the Judicial procedure of the House of Lords, prescribe times within which Petitions for leave to appeal must be lodged, security must be given and cases have to be lodged. Anyone who wishes to be legally aided in the House of Lords must first apply to an Area Committee for a legal aid certificate. It is likely that the Committee will
576
already know enough of the merits of the would-be appellant's case and of his means to be able to deal expeditiously with his application for legal aid. I have no doubt that these Area committees will give high priority to such cases, which will be comparatively rare and, at the same time, important if they are meritorious. There will, however, be some cases in which Committees are not able to consider applications for legal aid for the House of Lords and give their decision in time for the applicant to proceed within the periods of time laid down by the Standing Orders, to which I have already referred. The purpose of my first Amendment is to extend the time allowed by Standing Orders II, V and VI until one week after an Area Committee has granted or refused legal aid.
The purpose of my second Amendment is simply to provide that Standing Order V, which requires security for costs to be given by appellants, shall not apply to appellants who have been granted legal aid. It would be inappropriate to require security for costs from an assisted person and to expect him to find £700 by way of security. The alternatives allowed by Standing Order V, of paying into the Security Fund £200 and giving a recognizance to the amount of £500, or to procure two sureties to enter into a bond to the amount of £200 and a recognizance to the amount of £500, would be just as impracticable from the point of view of the appellant. Any such requirement would, in all probability, defeat Parliament's intention of making legal aid available in your Lordships' House. If, in any particular case, the Appeal Committee considered that a legally aided appellant should give some security for costs then, notwithstanding the proposed Amendment, there would be nothing to prevent an order from being made to require him to do so. But we must recognize that such an order would be an exceptional case, in the nature of things, because the legally aided appellant will already have been required to contribute what he is considered to be able to contribute to the costs of the case.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, has been kind enough to call my attention to the hardship caused to the unassisted opponent of an assisted person, when the former wins his case in

577
this House and the latter has contributed nothing to his opponent's heavy expenses. Therefore, I should like to take up just a moment or two on this difficult problem. It is a difficulty which, as your Lordships will remember, has been discussed many times before. There have been various proposals for paying the assisted person's opponent's costs out of public funds and for establishing some form of indemnity fund. Each of these proposals has its own disadvantages.
No doubt, the fundamental difficulty is the cost. Some months ago, while the Bill for the Legal Aid Act of this year was before Parliament, it was estimated that it would cost £200,000 to set up a full indemnity fund for High Court cases alone. I could not say what the cost would be to-day, but I have little doubt that it would be higher than that, and it is only right to remember that an expenditure of that order could not be incurred without very carefully considering the case for it, compared with the case for extending the Legal Aid Scheme in other ways and also the claims for other social services. Your Lordships will appreciate that, though it might be said that if the appellant can pay costs at one stage, why not at another, that would be a very difficult line to uphold.
May I say one word on a matter on which I feel strongly, as to the position I have adopted with regard to legal aid? I believe that it is an essential part of our civilization that the courts should be open to the whole range of the people. In the last century this began with the famous remark of Mr. Justice Maule to a tinker who had been convicted of bigamy when he said: "Your remedy was perfectly plain,"—and he indicated the remedy. He then said: "That would have cost you £1,000. You may say to me, 'I have never had 1,000 pence.' But I am here as a Judge of the High Court of England to tell you that in this country. at any rate, it is our glory that there is not one law for the rich and another for the poor." The same point was put in shorter terms in my own early days at the Bar—that the Law Courts, like the Ritz Hotel, are open to everyone. That was my difficulty.
I thought that the priorities in extending legal aid were, naturally, the course that I have followed in the last six years
578
and two months that I have had the honor to hold my present position. I thought that the first need was legal aid for the county courts, because it was useless to extend the jurisdiction of the county courts without extending legal aid. The next was for legal advice, first oral, and then written, because I felt that, once a system of legal advice was established, and people could be advised at the earliest possible stage, it might stop a lot of unnecessary litigation. I then thought it necessary to make the corrections in the income ranges which the fall in the value of money had necessitated. Fourthly, I thought it was necessary—and my right honorable friend, the Home Secretary, agreed with me—to introduce the rates that Parliament had thought right for criminal defences; fifthly, for civil cases in magistrates courts—and your Lordships who are magistrates know how difficult these husband and wife and affiliation cases are; and sixthly, for legal aid in the House of Lords. But I always have to consider the priorities, and that is my first difficulty.
This proposal would mean the State's embarking on both sides of litigation. Of course, this occasionally happens now, but it is manifestly undesirable that it should happen generally. A further difficulty would be that there would be less inducement than there is now to keep the cost of an action down; the conduct of the action would be uncontrolled. Moreover, it might tempt Area Committees, when considering applications for legal aid, to tip the scales in favor of granting legal aid to undeserving persons. I should like to say that, in my view, they have kept an amazingly high standard. One finds cases where they have been misled, but the number of those, if we take the whole of the last eleven years, is remarkably small.
As I have observed on a previous occasion, it is by no means easy to say what it is fair to impose on the general body of taxpayers and what chance the individual must take himself. The possibility of being sued unsuccessfully is one which has, of course, always existed. Since the Legal Aid Scheme came into force the poor person has merely been put in a better position, than he was formerly in, to start or defend proceedings

579
in cases in which the appropriate Committee considers that it would be reasonable for him to do so. I still do not consider that it would necessarily—I repeat, necessarily—be right for the general body of taxpayers to pay the costs of the successful opponent of an assisted person, even when the unassisted person has won his case against his assisted opponent in the court of first instance and in the Court of Appeal. The argument for that may be put in this way: the assisted person has been put in the position of someone who is not impoverished and who is given the best available advice. It is such an opponent that the unassisted person is against. However, I am still much concerned about the matter and am proposing to consider it once again in the light of information from a survey which is at present being made for me in the Court of Appeal.
In the meantime, it is only right to remind your Lordships of two other factors, which are intended to avoid possible injustice to an unassisted litigant. First. Section 2 (2) (e) of the Act of 1949 enables the Court to make an order for costs against the assisted, person, which, however must not exceed the amount (if any) which is a reasonable one for him to pay having regard to all the circumstances, including the means of the parties and their conduct in connection with the dispute. I always hesitate to interfere with the discretion of the Judges, but, since I spoke about this problem on the Bill earlier this year, I have, as I then indicated that I would do, brought to the attention of the Judges the importance of exercising their powers so that assisted persons should pay such of their opponent's costs as they reasonably can. Secondly, an opponent of an assisted person is entitled to refer a case, to which he is a party, to the Area Committee, if he thinks that the assisted person has unreasonably refused a fair offer of settlement.
My Lords, I shall, of course, continue with my consideration. I think it would be a great pity if the general advance of advice and representation were to be retarded. I hope that your Lordships will allow me to have this Standing Order on my undertaking not to be weary in well-doing, but to go on with the consideration of the problems the
580
difficulty of which I have tried to outline. I apologize again for having taken up your Lordships' time, but this is an important social problem to-day. It is one very much in my charge, and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me for having said these few words. I beg Ito move that the traditional Standing Orders be amended as shown on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the following new Standing Order be agreed to—
("Where a party to an appeal has applied to an Area Committee for legal aid, and the decision of the Committee has not been announced before the expiration of the periods of time limited by Standing Orders Nos. II, V or VI, such periods of time shall be extended until one week after the refusal of the application or the issue of a certificate.");
In Standing Order No. V, after paragraph (3), to insert—
("(4) This Standing Order shall not apply to Appellants who have been granted legal aid.") —(The Lord Chancellor.)
2.50 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to say a word on this (matter, because I have been interested in it for some considerable time. Some time ago we had a debate on this subject, which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will remember. Of course, there is no objection at all to the Lord Chancellor's first proposal but, as he himself has indicated, there is a point with regard to the second proposal. That is the position of the unassisted litigant, who may, of course, be involved in considerable costs when an, assisted litigant comes up to the House of Lords.
I think two of the great legal reforms which were introduced by the Government led by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, between 1945 and 1950, were the right of the subject to sue the Crown in tort, and the benefit of this Legal Aid Scheme which is now coming to fruition. I should like to congratulate the noble and learned Viscount on the way in which he has extended the legal aid system until to-day we have almost reached its final conclusion. There yet remains this one problem—that is to say, if a man has had legal aid and has been assisted by all of us, the taxpayers, and loses his case, the defendant in all probability will not, or may not, be assisted in any way, and he has to pay considerable costs as a result of the

581
action which has been brought against him.
I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that, certainly in the county court or High Court, this seems to be unavoidable at present. But I have some qualification with regard to the House of Lords. It happens on the Continent, particularly in France, that where there is a point of law of great importance Which needs to be decided, that point can be taken to the highest court which is equivalent to the House of Lords, the Court de Cassation, by the appropriate judicial officers or the appropriate legal officers, and the Court can consider that point and arrive at a decision upon it, thus, of course, avoiding the necessity of a large number of cases being brought by people who may be affected by some ambiguity in the law. That has never been our system in this country, and in fact it is abhorrent to lawyers in this country who cannot conceive of points of law in abstract, as it were. Their whole training is such that they must have a concrete case to go upon, an actual case, before they can decide on the issue.
I think the noble and learned Viscount might consider, if he would—in fact, he says he will—this question so far as it affects the House of Lords. Any case which is brought up here, any case which gets a certificate under the Legal Aid Scheme, any case which has gone both to the High Court and the Court of Appeal, will be, in all probability, one of considerable magnitude. It will not only affect the particular issue at stake in the case, but it will affect many people and it will affect the law as it stands. It could be a leading case. In, those circumstances, it seems to me that there is a great deal to be said for the view that the public should stand the cost of such appeal to the House of Lords.
In other words, I do not feel it is right that some unfortunate man, who is brought up here unassisted, should have to stand the cost of what is in fact, in many cases, a clearing up of an ambiguity which we, as legislators, have allowed to be introduced into an Act of Parliament or have allowed to continue through not amending an existing Act of Parliament. To put it another way, to some extent an unassisted litigant may well have to pay heavily from
582
his own pocket through some failing on our part as the two Houses of Parliament. Therefore, while commending, if I may respectfully do so, the objects of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, and certainly not in any way wishing to stand in the light of these Orders to-day, I ask him to bear in mind that particular point when he comes to consider the general question of costs.
2.56 p.m.
LORD REID: My Lords, I also welcome the introduction of legal aid in this House. I think that if we can devise proper safeguards it is a good thing. But my purpose in trespassing upon your Lordships' time this afternoon is to develop, I hope at not too great length, what I believe to be the injustice involved if the Standing Orders are amended in the terms of these proposals. I will concentrate first on the position of a respondent who is brought to this House by an assisted person.
As your Lordships have already been told, all appellants (with a very small exception which I shall mention in a moment) have to find security for £700 for costs, and all respondents are therefore protected, so that if they hold the judgment in this House they will be able to recover a sum which ought at least to go a long way towards paying their costs in this House. Now we are to make a breach in that. For the benefit of the Treasury, and for no other reason, we are going to put the respondent who is brought here by an assisted person in a very much worse position than a respondent who is brought here by anybody else. I have yet to learn of any other reason for this older as to security, except that it is in order to do justice to a respondent who is brought up here having won his case in the court below. But now we are going to say that, although justice requires that that should be kept in being with regard to the ordinary respondent, either justice is to go by the board or some different standard of justice is to be applied in the case of a respondent who is brought here by an assisted person.
My first question is: Why should we put a respondent in a worse position financially merely because his opponent is an assisted person? I am aware that there is one small exception to this rule.

583
In the past, a few litigants have come here as poor persons, but in that case the respondent has at least the consolation that, with very minor exceptions, no costs are ever awarded in this House in a case involving a poor person. Therefore, although the respondent who is brought here by a poor person does not get anything if he wins, he does not have to pay the other side's costs if he loses. But now it is going to be "Heads I win, tails you lose." If the assisted person wins, then—unless some consequential alteration is made—the other party will have to pay his costs. But if the assisted person loses, nothing is payable at all. It is quite true there is a provision that costs can be awarded against an assisted person, but, of course, all possible exercise of that rule will have been made in the Courts below, and it is quite incredible that when an assisted person comes here he still has any funds out of which costs can be paid.
I understand, and I think it is right, that in the case of a legally aided person who comes here, unlike a poor person, the House fees are paid. I am told that they amount to something like £40—it is not very much. The fees of this House are going to be safeguarded: the Legal Aid Fund is going to pay that. But if it is also a condition of coming here that an appellant must not only pay the fees required in the House but also find security, why cannot the Legal Aid Fund find security? It is the duty of the Legal Aid Fund to pay money which is necessary to enable a person to prosecute his claim in any court, and if the Rules of this House require that security shall be found, then logically it is the duty of the Legal Aid Fund to find that security in order to enable the assisted person to pursue his claim.
It is a competition between a trifling saving for the Treasury—because there would not be more than one or two of these cases a year one expects—and what may be a very great hardship to one or two individuals. It does not in the least follow that the same rule must be applied here as in the Courts below. As a general rule security is not found in the courts below, but it is found here; and why the Legal Aid Fund cannot find the security here, when it is part of our Rules, without that opening the wider
584
question, I just do not understand. The finding of security is as much a condition of coming here as paying the fees. But if it is a matter of amending the Scheme (it may require amendment), I would ask why the Scheme cannot be amended to enable that to be done, rather than amend the Standing Orders of this House. One or other must be amended, I agree. But why not the Scheme?
If your Lordships will bear with me a moment, I should like to say a little about the wider aspects of this question which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has mentioned. There is no doubt that there is a great deal of criticism and a good deal of hardship involved at present in an assisted person suing a person of very limited means. I am not quite sure what the upper limit now is for being admitted as an assisted person, but it is not very high, and there are a number of people who may be sued and whose means are very moderate. It is perfectly true that the Courts of this country ought to be open to everybody, but they are not open to-day to the opponent of an assisted person who is of moderate means himself. Observe what he has to contemplate. Even before the extension of this Scheme to the House of Lords he has to contemplate this situation. He may win in the first Court at the trial Then he may be taken by the assisted person to the Court of Appeal, and he may lose. In that event he has to pay the whole costs of both sides, and he does not have the advantage of getting anything if he wins—or, at least, anything substantial. So I think it is perfectly plain that to the person just above the assistance limit the Courts of this country are closed.
Why should that be, my Lords? I raised that matter in this House when the legislation was first going through in 1949. I did not expect to get a very favorable answer then, because the Scheme was new, money was short and the Government of the day were perfectly entitled to say, "This is experimental and we must learn as we go on". And I think that that is what the late Lord Jowitt, in effect, said. I thought that, having raised the point, I could do no more. But time has passed. A great deal more expenditure has been embarked upon in this Scheme—and quite properly. It has been extended, as my

585
noble and learned friend has said, on many occasions. But not the slightest attempt has been made to alleviate, let alone abolish, this (as I call it) injustice, and it appears to me that the time has come when we ought not to continue this injustice and at the same time continue extending legal aid from one sphere to another. The money has been found for other things. We are told that the cost would be only £200,000 if one took in the whole of the High Court procedure. If an extension is made to this House—which it appears to me is a proper extension—before going on to deal with the whole question, it is not a matter of thousands; it is a matter of hundreds of pounds a year. And yet, as I say it may cure a very serious injustice in certain cases.
Observe what happens. I said a moment ago that the defendant sued by a legally aided person must contemplate being taken to the Court of Appeal and then perhaps losing and perhaps even being ruined. Now every defendant has to contemplate something worse than that because nobody can tell in what cases points proper to come before this House may arise. We had two running-down cases here the other day—cases of the most ordinary kind. Therefore almost any defendant has to say to himself, "Now if this goes through, I may win at the trial and an important point of law may emerge. I may win again in the Court of Appeal, but the point may be so important it is brought to the House of Lords. I may lose there and then where am I?" Really, my Lords, it does seem to me that this goes far beyond the two or three defendants who are brought here. It affects people who are trying to litigate and defend their rights against assisted persons all over the Band. And yet for the sake of a few hundred pounds this additional worry is to be put on everybody.
There is no doubt that we who are Lords of Appeal in Ordinary have recognized this kind of situation, because it has been customary for some time to put appellants on terms (I am not talking now of assisted persons but about ordinary litigation); that is to say, when a person of moderate means has won twice in the Courts below it has now become very common, and I think very proper, to say to a person who attempts to appeal to this House, "Well, you have
586
a case which is deserving of consideration in this House, but you must undertake either not to ask for the award of costs against you in the Court below to be reversed, or (in addition, perhaps) not to ask for costs in this House if you win." Sometimes we go even further and we say to a prospective appellant, "You must undertake if you are to come here "—it may be a test case or something like that—"that you will pay all the costs in this House, win or lose."
I want to ask my noble and learned friend how far the Appeal Committee or the Court of Appeal are still free to impose terms of that kind. I shall not be surprised if I am told that we can no longer impose the last alternative; that we can no longer say to an assisted person, "You must undertake to pay all costs in this House, win or lose". Can we say to an assisted person, or can the Court of Appeal say to him, "If you go to the House of Lords you must undertake not to ask for costs in that House and not to seek to disturb the award of costs in favor of your opponent in the Court below."
That would be some alleviation, because I should hope that in granting leave Courts would consider widely—as they always should and, I think, do—the hardships involved. And if it is proper (and I hope my noble and learned friend will say that it is) for the Court of Appeal or for the Appeal Committee in this House to say to an assisted person, "Now you must undertake not to try to disturb the award of costs in favor of your opponent in the Court of Appeal and you must not ask for costs in this House", that will go quite a long way to get rid of the trouble. It will not get rid of the whole trouble, but it would at least make the thing a little clearer. Because at the moment, as I say, it is all loaded in favour of the assisted person—that is, in favour of the Treasury—because they get costs on a win and they lose nothing on a loss. I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to give some comfort in that respect, even if he cannot withdraw this Standing Order. I hope that he will be able, even if the Motion goes through to-day, to restore the Standing Order at an early date.
One other thing I should like to say. I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, in his plea that public

587
funds should be regarded for appeals to this House as—I do not say, universally available, but available in proper cases. Cases come here only in the public interest. Nobody is allowed to come here merely on his own merits. Cases come here because a point of law is involved which it is in the public interest should he cleared up one way or another. That appears to me to afford an additional reason for not putting the penalty on the opponent of the assisted person, but putting the penalty where it ought to be, on the Legal Aid Fund.
There are two other matters I should just like to mention. We have been embarrassed on occasions by a respondent not appearing to defend his judgment. Your Lordships will be aware that this House never reverses a judgment of a court below without hearing full argument, whether the respondent is here to defend his judgment or not; but it is extremely embarrassing to find that the respondent is not represented and only one side of the case is presented. I Mould not be in the least surprised if the opponent of an assisted person, with this prospect in front of him, were advised, "Your best plan is not to incur expense in the House of Lords, because you cannot get it back if you win". We may very well find that embarrassments of that kind occur which could be avoided if this Standing Order were not passed. Indeed, it may defeat its own object, because a court may very well be less willing to grant leave when they see the injustice involved if leave is granted, and it may be that proper cases which would otherwise come here—the court has a discretion whether to grant leave or not—will not come here at all. This appears to me, if I may say so, to be spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar. That is what it comes to. In effect, the dilemma is this: if doing something to assist the opponent of an assisted person is going to cost very little, why not do it and save such hardship as there is to a few people? If it is going to cost a lot, that means that there is a great deal of injustice going on, and therefore still more we ought to do something to alleviate that injustice.
I was glad to hear my noble and learned friend saying that this matter is being reconsidered. I hope it will be
588
reconsidered, with effect, at an early date, because I fear that some of these cases will be coming up here soon, and what I we have to think about is the advice which is going to be given to people who have good cases but are afraid of going on against an assisted person because they are fighting the whole wealth of the Fund. Unless something is done very soon, it may well be that a number of people whose rights ought to be defended will not be defended. I am sure nobody wants that. But to return to the immediate point that I have in mind, I would, if I may ask a rhetorical question, ask: can it be denied that the only reason for asking security is to do justice to respondents? If it can be denied, what other reason is there? If it cannot be denied, why are we asked to do injustice to those few respondents?
3.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMONDS: My Lords, I would add only a few words. I am conscious that I may be told by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that I took a different view some six years ago when I occupied the place which he now occupies. I am far too old to be either afraid to change my mind or to be ashamed of doing so. It appeared to me that my noble and learned friend Lord Reid made a powerful and quite unimpugnable case. To me it appears nothing less than a monstrous injustice that a legally assisted person should come to this House after having lost his case perhaps in two courts below, and then be exempt from all responsibility to his still successful opponent. I see no justification for that at all.
There is only one thing in the observations of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack which struck me, and that was—whether he used the word or not—that I think he hinted at that fatal subject "repercussion", which we hear so much about: if you do this, then something else will require to be done. I think that appeals to this House stand on a footing of their own, and there is no reason to fear that to do justice in the way which my noble and learned friend has suggested in this House should necessarily have any repercussions If it does, it would have repercussions in favour of justice being done, net only here but in the courts below. I heartily endorse what

589
my noble and learned friend has so forcefully said, and I hope that favourable consideration will be given to this subject.
3.17 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not hear the observations of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor in introducing this Motion. I did not appreciate that it was on the Order Paper, otherwise I should have been here. Therefore, I would not have taken part in the discussion but for the speeches of the noble and learned Lords which we have just heard. With a great deal of what they say I am in complete support and sympathy, as indeed I imagine everyone must be who appreciates the position of an unassisted person being brought to the courts, perhaps wrongly, and eventually succeeding and not being able to get his costs. But I would point out to both noble and learned Lords that there is nothing unique about this. This does not happen necessarily as the result of legal aid. I suppose started my legal career at roughly the same time as the two noble and learned Lords who have just spoken—
VISCOUNT SIMONDS: Long after me.
LORD SILKIN: Not so very long— and my experience goes back to times when impecunious plaintiffs started proceedings against insurance companies and against people who had means, and carried them right through, not necessarily to the House of Lords but to the Court of Appeal, knowing that they could not possibly pay the costs if they were unsuccessful; and, indeed, the defendants realized that, and often settled actions because it was cheaper to do that than to fight them and succeed. There is nothing new at all in impecunious persons taking proceedings. It has been regularized to a certain extent by legal aid. Not every impecunious person took proceedings, even if he had justice on his side. A good many—that was the justification for legal aid—were not able to take proceedings, and have been assisted.
I should like to have some record—I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount gave us those records —of the number of legally-assisted people who succeed in their actions, as against the number who do not. My
590
impression is that a very high percentage of legally-assisted people are justified in getting legal aid and succeed in their cases. But I recognize that there can be a hardship on an unassisted person who, succeeding both in the court of first instance, possibly to-day the county court, and in the Court of Appeal, then finds that he has to bear the costs by himself, and gets no assistance at all. I recognize that that person may be little better off than the assisted person. I also should be in favour of this matter being carefully considered to see whether in some way, in proper cases, the cost of a successful defendant can be met out of the Legal Aid Fund. I understand that the noble and learned Viscount has given an assurance that that matter will be looked into.
My real reason for rising is the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid. I do not know whether I understood him correctly, or misunderstood him, but he seemed to imply that the House of Lords might be influenced in considering whether a case was one which was worthy of being considered—whe there it was, to use his own words, "a case where an important question of law was being decided for the public benefit"—not by the merits of the case at all but by the question of who was eventually to pay the costs.
LORD REID: My Lords, I certainly think any court moist he influenced by hardships they are going to do by reaching a certain decision; and if they are not able to adjust financial matters to prevent gross hardship I should personally regard that as a perfectly good reason for refusing leave.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I absolutely join issue with the noble and learned Lord on that matter. I think it is completely wrong. While I do not want to use unduly strong language about it, I believe the business of the Law Lords is to consider whether a case is a proper case to be considered by them, having regard to the questions at issue and the points of law involved, and not having regard to the means of the respective contestants.
LORD REID: My Lords, might I ask, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, if he disapproves, then, of the practice that has

591
grown up in this House of requiring an undertaking from appellants with regard to costs before they are granted leave?
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I do not approve. I thought the noble and learned Lord was asking the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack whether that is a proper procedure; and my own personal opinion is that it is not. I believe that everybody ought to have access to the courts in proper cases where an important question of law has to be settled. It is for the Law Lords to decide whether it is a proper question to be settled, and once they have decided that it is one which ought to be considered by them then I feel any question of costs and who should bear them is quite irrelevant. Nobody should be deprived of the opportunity merely because he may not be in a position to pay the costs. But I recognize that, in many cases that gives rise to hardship, and I would join with the noble and learned Lord in asking the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack to give consideration to this hardship. But, in the meantime, I hope that Petitions to the House of Lords will not be decided on the basis of the means of those who come before them.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, surely the answer to Lord Silkin's first point is that although it is perfectly true that in the old days the successful respondent might suffer at the hands of the impecunious appellant, to-day the position is much worse, because under the Legal Aid Scheme as it stands it is virtually certain to-day that the successful respondent will suffer because of the impecunious appellant. That is the trouble: that while this could happen in days gone by, it almost invariably happens when these matters arise to-day.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, if a plain man who knows nothing about English law may put in a word, may I say that it seems to me that the issue which has just been raised between the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, shows how crucial the injustice is likely to be; and the injustice is not mitigated by calling it hardship. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will be able to reconsider this matter.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, this discussion has got on to a very wide plane and I hope we shall keep it confined to the more narrow issue which the noble and learned Viscount raised in the Motion he has moved. I feel, with my noble friend Lord Silkin, that we want to be rather cautious about this matter. The suggestion that people might be deprived of the opportunity of having an important question of law decided by this House, either on the grounds of the financial position of the appellant or because the respondent chooses to absent himself from attending this House to defend the appeal, seems to me to raise a very wide issue which wants to be considered with a great deal more leisure than is available to-day.
3.28 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for what he was kind enough to say about me, and proceed at once to his point. The suggestion he has made, which was really that I should tackle the solution of this problem from the point of view of important litigation —that is, the question of whether the costs ought to be paid for by the public —touches a most important aspect of the matter. The noble Lord was supported by my noble and learned friend, Lord Reid, and I shall certainly do that. Analogies are always dangerous, but the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, will remember that I have approached another problem in that way, increasing the right of appeals to the House of Lords in criminal cases and trying to find the right formula for important litigation. I will certainly do that and it will be part of the consideration which I have already promised.
My noble and learned friend, Lord Reid, made a powerful speech, but as he ranged a little widely I believe your Lordships ought to have in mind that the assisted person does not rely solely on the funds of the State. It is a triple matter. The State contributes; the person himself contributes on a carefully worked-out scale, and the legal profession contribute by taking lower costs. I should not like those of your Lordships who are not lawyers to feel that this was entirely a matter of State help. It is a

593
triple operation and, thanks to the extraordinarily good Legal Aid Advisory Committee that I have (I do not mean the local committees who decide applications) who advise me on the working of the scheme, presided over by my noble friend, Lord Bridgman, your Lordships can see from that the high quality of that Committee They can help me on such points as the limits of the scheme and the amount that should be paid.
But where I join issue with my noble and learned friend Lord Reid in my approach to the matter—it does not affect the reconsideration which I have already promised—is that I think it is important that people should have access to the courts with all the assistance that the legal profession can give them. I have a keener feeling for the injustice that happened to people who could not come to the courts in the past than my noble friend has. I take a very simple definition from my point of view as a lawyer of a civilized society: at the end of the clay, when people do not agree as to their rights, either the one can say to the other, "All right, I will sue you"; or the other can say to the one, if I may use a colloquial phrase without offence, "Sue me and be damned!". Until people are in a position to do that, I do not think my profession is offering the service to the community which it should.
My noble and learned friend Lord Reid talked of the in forma pauperis procedure. Of course we have all been glad of it in the past; every lawyer in this House has taken his share in that procedure. But I do not think that it was satisfactory, and it was because it was not a satisfactory procedure that the Rushcliffe Committee, presided over by our old friend, came to the conclusion that the Legal Aid Scheme should be evolved. The other point that I think my noble and learned friend (if he will allow me to say so) overstressed was this. He said that every defendant or, I presume, every plaintiff who is in contest with the legally-aided person will be afraid of the matter coming to the House of Lords. Over the last, I think, 26 years one could not in England come to the House of Lords without getting leave, either from the Court of Appeal, or, if the Court of Appeal refuses, from the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords; and both the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords consider whether
594
the point or the case is of sufficient importance that it should come to the highest tribunal. So we are really limited to that form and to that class of case.
The difficulty, as I tried to put it quite frankly in my opening remarks, was that on the one side you must see that people who are poor or of moderate means, or whatever you like, are adequately advised and represented. The danger, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, pointed out, of being sued by an impecunious person has always existed. It must exist, because impecunious persons have rights and the law is not an exact science. All of us in this room have given people advice that they will succeed in cases in which they have failed—every lawyer has, however great his learning or his position. And when the law is not an exact science there is always the possibility that someone will bring proceedings, and in the eyes of 49 per cent. of the legal profession he is right while 51 per cent., including the person who may form the majority in the House of Lords, think he is wrong. In these circumstances, unless impecunious people are going to be barred from the courts, the danger must exist. The question is: how can we mitigate it? I gave the objections I have seen, and no one has seriously controverted them, to making every case financed by the State on both sides.
My noble and learned friend Lord Simonds put a different point. I assure my noble and learned friend that, however often he changes his mind, every opinion to which he returns will receive equal respect and attention from me. My noble and learned friend has put a different point. He has said that cases that come to the House of Lords judicially are sui generis and if we were to give financial support in these cases it would not have repercussions on cases in the Court of Appeal or the High Court. That is a very difficult point. I am willing to consider it. That is another angle of approach. It is approximate to but not quite the same as the point of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, but of course I will consider that as well.
But on the general position I ask your Lordships to remember my point of view. I will try to mitigate the difficulties that arise. But if your Lordships approach

595
this subject on the terms that there is injustice if someone fights an assisted plaintiff and wins, well, that is one point of view. If your Lordships do that, However, remember at the same time the injustice that would be done to many poor people—and not only poor people in the old sense but people of moderate means who come up to a considerable income rate to-day—if we were to take away these means of establishing their rights. My Lords, I am very happy to consider this matter again; I will do my best. I put the difficulties before your Lordships; your Lordships will be good enough to put suggestions to me. I hope that your Lordships will take it that I will consider every suggestion and see whether a solution that is generally accepted can be found. In the meantime, I ask your Lordships to accept my Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Standing Orders amended accordingly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, before we go to next Business, might we not see whether we can get a better arrangement to prevent injustice to the House of Peers? Noble Lords should not have to wait for so long for Questions which have been put on the Paper. I am not at all blaming the length of the debate upon what is a very important matter, but it is a question of the Order of Business. Some people have other things to do and they have put down their Questions in the hope of getting them answered at the proper time. I would ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to consider that on future occasions.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I certainly will. I do not think I could do something without some alteration in the Order of Business of the House. Perhaps if the noble Viscount could get in touch with us through the usual channels we could do something. I think it is laid down by Standing Orders.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, might it not be possible for those noble and learned Lords who have made the speeches we have listened to with great interest, but which were somewhat lengthy, privately to inform the noble Viscount the Leader of the House when they propose to speak in this way in future?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Of course, that is always welcome, if we can have from noble Lords any information of when they are going to speak and what they are going to speak about.

POLICE CADETS
3.40 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to encourage the recruitment and training of police cadets in England and Wales.]
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, it has been Government policy for a number of years to encourage the police authorities to appoint police cadets, and nearly all have done so. The number of police cadets has steadily increased, and in most areas there appears to be no shortage of suitable applicants. Recruiting publicity is essentially a local matter, as it must be suited to the local needs. Training is also primarily a matter for the force concerned. Earlier this year my right honorable friend the Home Secretary, as police authority for London, approved the Commissioner of Police's proposals for re-modeling the training arrangements for cadets with the Metropolitan Police, and I am glad to say that there is no shortage of recruits of good standard.

NYASALAND: SMALLPOX VACCINATION AND INTIMIDATION
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if the smallpox epidemic in Nyasaland has now abated, what is the estimated

597
number of the inhabitants of Nyasaland who have been vaccinated during the present year and whether any action is possible under the laws of Nyasaland to prosecute those persons who, by intimidation, have attempted to persuade the inhabitants of Nyasaland not to be vaccinated.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, health is a responsibility of the Federal Government, but am informed that the epidemic has not yet subsided. The total number vaccinated is over 480,000. When intimidation involves threats of unlawful action, such as violence to persons or property, or is carried out by unlawful means. including unlawful conspiracy, the laws of Nyasaland provide for action to be taken against the offenders. In two instances where medical teams have been hindered by physical intimidation the authorities brought forward cases for trial. One has resulted in the conviction of the principal offenders, and the other is shortly to be heard.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for his Answer. May I ask him whether he is aware, as no doubt he is, that a serious charge has been made—which, I think, takes the form of a Motion in another place (but that I must not refer to) and also reports in the Press—against Dr. Banda and the Party which he leads, that he, being a doctor and having himself been vaccinated, did his best to persuade his followers to intimidate those who wished to be vaccinated? Whatever may be the constitutional position vis-à-vis the Nyasaland Government—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
EARL WINTERTON: —would it not be fairer to Dr. Banda to say whether or not this statement is true?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I feel quite sure that Dr. Banda is well able to take care of himself—we have seen that on various other occasions. I would just say that I am not aware of any statement that he has made along the lines that the noble Earl has indicated.
EARL WINTERTON: In that case, may we have an assurance from the Minister that all steps will be taken in
598
the future to prevent such intimidation as has taken place in the past? I must not refer to other instances of intimidation, but some very serious charges have been brought against Dr. Banda in connection with this and other matters in the last few days by Africans themselves.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, on the question of intimidation, as your Lordships know, it is very often a difficult thing to prove. But where there is a ease which can be brought to court the Nyasaland Government will certainly take the necessary steps; and, as I say, they have done so in these instances I have already indicated.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, as I indicated the other day when the statement on the Conference was made, we are all anxious to be fairly restrained as to what we raise about this matter just now, until we can see where we are going as regards the Conference? It is fundamental to have the best relationships possible. The other thing I should like to ask is this: is the Minister satisfied that in this vaccination campaign the local authorities have been able to achieve the reasonable target they set themselves in the number of cases dealt with?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, to the extent that there has been intimidation, clearly the target they set themselves has not been fulfilled
EARL WINTERTON: Does the Minister mean that intimidation was carried out on a wide scale; and, if so, why can we not have a more definite answer on the matter?
THE EARL OF PERTH: It does not mean that. I have said expressly that there were two cases of physical intimidation of the medical teams which tried to do the vaccination, and in both those cases the Nyasaland Government have prosecuted or are prosecuting.
EARL WINTERTON: But no doubt the Minister is aware that an African of great position stated on the wireless last Mat that he had been intimidated and, indeed, assaulted.
THE EARL OF PERTH: That, I believe, has nothing to do with the question of vaccination.

FOWL PEST AND FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE
3.46 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to state the number of outbreaks, number of birds and beasts slaughtered and cost to the Exchequer to date in the current epidemics of fowl pest and foot-and-mouth disease.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, from the beginning of September to December 14, 633 outbreaks of fowl pest were confirmed in Great Britain, involving the slaughter of nearly 11 million birds. Compensation payable will be about £1 million. From November 6 to December 14, 235 outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease were confirmed in Great Britain, involving the slaughter of about 17,000 cattle, 20,500 sheep and 7,000 pigs. Compensation will amount to over £1 million. In addition to compensation. there will be some cost to the Exchequer arising out of disinfection and similar ancillary operations.
I hope I shall not be out of order if I mention that, since the noble Earl put down his Question, his own farms have been struck by fowl pest and he has himself lost more than 50,000 birds. I thought your Lordships would like me to express our sympathy to him.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for his reply? May I also assure noble Lords that the fact that I have put down this Question has no relation to my own troubles? Would the noble Earl venture to say whether or not, in his opinion, these diseases are now past their peak? Or is that an impossible question to answer?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I shall find that somewhat difficult to answer, because I hate to give hostages to fortune. I should say that the fowl pest epidemic is still causing us serious concern in the Eastern counties, but I should hope that we are over the worst of the foot-and-mouth epidemic.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, did the noble Earl's figures include Scotland, as well as England and Wales?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Yes. My figures were for Great Britain.
LORD WISE: My Lords, might I ask the noble Earl, in view of the question which has just been asked by the noble Duke opposite, whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a dissection of these figures, county by county, so that we will know more or less where the outbreaks are?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Yes, my Lords, I think we can do that. I think a great deal of information has been given in the Press and over the B.B.C., who have been most co-operative throughout these outbreaks, and I think that information is readily available. But details can certainly be circulated as to where all these outbreaks have been.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, could the noble Earl say, in view of the fact that many persons quite uninformed, as I am, are a little anxious about it, why we have not adopted the vaccination method against foot-and-mouth disease?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I think that that question hardly arises out of the Question. It is a very complex matter, but the very short answer is that the slaughter policy is a far better policy for a country which has a chance of stamping out the disease altogether (such as we have, as an island), and vaccination is really applicable only to countries such as the South American countries, where it is a very long-term process to keep the disease under control.
LORD LATHAM: It is done in Germany, is it not?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Germany is not an island.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider some form of licensing of poultry and cattle dealers in an attempt to curb the spread of fowl pest and foot-and-mouth disease, and to give the

601
agricultural community in general more confidence in its relationship with these people.]
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, though at first sight I was attracted to this idea, I fear that there are great difficulties. The mere licensing of dealers would not significantly lessen the spread of disease, because the risk is inherent in the movement of the stock. Again it would not only be extremely difficult to define a dealer, but it would also be difficult to determine on what grounds a license should be granted or withheld.
EARL FERRERS: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his reply, but does he not consider that in the matter of prevention of disease the dealers are in fact the weakest link in the chain? And is it not possible for some restrictions to be imposed on people who buy cattle at a market and then re-hawk them around other markets, thereby very much increasing the possibility of spreading disease?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I should not like to go so far as the words of the noble Earl. I think we must admit that a very large number, probably the vast majority, of dealers in cattle or poultry are honest and honorable men. In applying myself to the question whether licensing would help in this matter, I am bound to say that I am very much afraid the difficulties would be too great.

ETHIOPIA: SAFETY OF BRITISH SUBJECTS
3.51 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House a Private Notice Question—namely, whether Her Majesty's Government can make a statement about the safety of British subjects and protected people in Ethiopia? We are rather anxious to know of any late news at the same time, and whether arrangements have been made to give protection.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My
602
Lords, with the permission of the House, I will read a statement which has just been made in another place by my right honorable friend the Lord Privy Seal. The statement is as follows:
"I have received information from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Addis Ababa within the past two hours that fighting has broken out in Addis Ababa. As an immediate measure the Ambassador is admitting to the Embassy compound any British subjects who wish to take refuge there.
"It is too soon to say whether it will be necessary to provide facilities for the evacuation of British subjects and protected persons. In the meantime we are taking urgent steps to make the necessary transport facilities available, including aircraft, if this should be required. We are, of course, in constant touch with the Embassy.
"There are about 900 British subjects in Ethiopia as a whole, of whom about 440 are of United Kingdom origin and about 300 from other Commonwealth countries. Of those of United Kingdom origin nearly all, about 90 per cent., are in Addis Ababa itself.
"Communications outside Addis Ababa have been interrupted, but we have no reason at present to believe that there is any danger to the comparatively small number of British subjects and protected persons living outside Addis Ababa."
My Lords, that concludes the statement of my right honorable friend.
LORD REA: My Lords, is the noble Viscount in a position to say whether the Government know anything of this organization which is said to have taken over power, and whether they have been approached with a request for recognition, or matters of that sort?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think we have been approached formally. I understand that the Ambassador has had an informal approach. It is, of course, necessary to await further clarification of the situation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.54 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name, which I understand is customary at this time of year.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 35 be suspended until the House adjourns for the Recess at Christmas for the purpose of giving Government Business (except with the consent of the Government) precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day, and that Standing Order No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended for the aforesaid period.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, before we pass what is almost a formality, perhaps the noble Viscount the Leader of the House would forgive my importunity in asking, so as not to take up other space of time, what are the present contemplations of the Government on the Business of the House for next week, on Monday and Tuesday, as a timetable? The sort of rumors I have heard are a little disturbing.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will give this information.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I gather that the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition is referring to the continuation of the Committee stage of the Weights and Measures Bill.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: We have a great deal of work to do on this Bill, but I hope that we shall be able to get through a fair amount to-day. However, I think it will probably be necessary to sit after dinner on Monday, and, according to how we progress, it may be necessary to sit late again on Tuesday in order to complete the Committee stage.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I have already indicated to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House the kind of strain that is imposed upon a limited Opposition with a Bill of this length and this detailed technical character, sitting in Committee day after
604
day. To sit late at night two or three days before Christmas, with other engagements and work outside the House pressing on us, seems to me to be quite unreasonable. Reasonable and normal hours to deal with this matter next week would be quite right, but surely we have some limits to our endurance.
LORD REA: My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether the number of new Amendments coming forward exceeds those already decided by the Committee?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the total number is something over 300, but we are at least catching up on the new intake and there have not been any recently. I fully appreciate what the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has said, but I feel that it will be to the advantage of the House if we can complete the Committee stage before Christmas, so that proper consideration can be given, between then and the Report stage, to all the various points which have been raised and which my noble friend Lord Dundee has undertaken to consider; and also so that there can be consultation. If we cannot complete the Committee stage till we return after the Christmas Recess, it will make it extremely difficult for all the points which have been raised by noble Lords on both sides of the House to be dealt with.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I fully appreciate what the noble Earl has said, and, of course, if we can finish in good time before the Recess, we shall all go away much happier. But the real difficulty is that the noble Earl has set himself what I have always regarded as an impossible target if we are to consider this Bill properly. I do not think that we do ourselves justice, or do the Bill justice, if we are going to sit indefinitely on Monday and Tuesday on a matter which requires very great concentration. The noble Earl who is in charge of this Bill, and his colleague, are no doubt indefatigable; but many of us are not, and we do tire after concentrating on this Bill for, say, three hours, and even a break for dinner is not adequate for the occasion. Also there are some of us who have other engagements for dinner on Monday and Tuesday.
It really is not doing justice to the Bill to try to force matters in this way.

605
We shall do our best, but, of course, Cleat are a great many Amendments from the other side of the House as well. We shall all exercise moderation in our speeches and in their length, but if it should become impossible, except by using means of this sort, to get the Committee stage finished before Christmas, we ought to postpone it until after Christmas.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords. may I join in these slight words of protest? I think the noble Earl will agree that, so far in the Committee stage, all have been very brief. I think he will also agree that none of the Amendments made could be regarded as anything but serious. There are only a few noble Lords who are taking part in the Committee stage, and apart from the Members who sit on the Government Front Bench, the rest of us are part-time politicians. We have to conduct our everyday affairs in the mornings. If we are to be asked to stay in this House until eleven or twelve o'clock on Monday and Tuesday night, at this time of the year in particular, it will he a very great hardship which I do not think the Government should put on Members of this House.
I would put one further point to the noble Earl, and that is that it is now four o'clock. If my memory serves me correctly, we have never started on this Bill at an earlier time. To put it crudely, we have been put at the "dog end" of Business for the three days of the Committee, and we shall probably be treated in the same way on Monday and Tuesday—I do not know. I think that it is quite outrageous that honest, loyal Members of your Lordships' House should be put to this hardship by being expected to deal with Business in this way. And I do not think that it is treating the Government Business in the right way.
LORD REA: My Lords, I must agree that there is some substance in what has been said from the Benches on my left. I understand, though I may be wrong, that Members of another place are sitting next Thursday. Would it not be a solution to follow their example?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge, another place is not sitting on Thursday. I should
606
have been only too happy to sit on Thursday—
LORD REA: Why not sit on Thursday and set them a good example?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the two Houses usually try to work in conjunction with regard to sittings. I should not like the idea of asking your Lordships' House to sit on Thursday if another place was not sitting. I fully appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said and I am very conscious of the full co-operation that all noble Lords have shown in dealing with this Bill. As has been said, it is a very complicated and complex Bill. I merely throw this out as a suggestion. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite would like to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, to postpone his debate until after the Recess and to continue with the Bill on Wednesday.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, at the moment my noble friend is not here to be consulted, but I will consult him in regard to the wishes of the Chief Whip, though I do not think that it is likely that it can be arranged. In any case, I do not understand this tremendous pressure to get this Bill through before Christmas. What is the great pressure? I do not know of any, except to suit the convenience of the Government for reasons about which we have not been fully informed. I am rather surprised at the suggestion from the Benches on my right, because apparently noble Lords who sit there have not been interested in the Bill up to now, except for one solitary noble Lord, who has kept watch for them over the Amendments all the way through. We are being improperly worked on this Bill. If we are kept here late for two nights in Christmas week, that is completely unfair; and I protest. The Government cannot expect the voluntary work which all of us have put into this Bill if they continue in this manner.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, perhaps we could continue this discussion through the usual channels. I will certainly do everything I can to meet the wishes of noble Lords opposite.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I beg to move the two Motions for the approval of Sunday Entertainments Orders which stand in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act, for extending section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Nelson, be approved;
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act, for extending section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Kendal, be approved.—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Motions agreed to.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
4.4 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills (including Bills for consolidating Private Acts), Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills presented under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence.

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN (PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL [H.L.]
4.6 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 39 [Annual reports by local weights and measures authorities]:
LORD BURDEN: This Amendment is one to which the weights and measures inspectors attach some importance. The clause requires local weights and measures authorities to report annually to the Board of Trade. Subsection (2) empowers the Board of Trade to include the information contained in any such report in any statement which they may publish, either generally or in relation to a particular area. Under Clause 40, the Board of Trade have power to cause inspections to be made and to hold an inquiry into weights and measures arrangements. Where a local inquiry is held, the report of the inspector shall be published together with such observations, if any, as the Board of Trade think fit to make thereon.
I submit that there is some danger that a local weights and measures inspector might find himself quite unjustly held accountable by the Board of Trade for some aspect of local weights and measures arrangements as indicated in the report of the local weights and measures authority. This position could easily arise, for instance, when the local authority, after having had their attention called to a certain set of circumstances, refuse to comply with the recommendations of their chief officer. I submit that it would be quite wrong, in circumstances of this kind, for any report to comment adversely on a weights and measures inspector where the real fault lies in the local authority

609
for not carrying out the recommendations of the officer concerned.
The proposed Amendment would require a local authority to include in their report to the Board of Trade a copy of any report made to them by their chief inspector in respect of the same period. This, at least, would ensure that the Board of Trade are aware of the facts put forward by the chief inspector personally, and would obviate any miscarriage of justice of the kind which I have indicated in my speech. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 38, leave out from ("Act;") to ("shall") in line 39 and insert ("a report under this subsection shall include a copy of any report for that financial year made to the local weights and measures authority by their chief inspector, and").—(Lord Burden.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: As the noble Lord has already observed, at the moment all that the local authorities are required to do is to send in statistics about the visits made by their inspectors to traders' premises and the equipment verified and inspected. It has been the increasing practice of recent years for inspectors to submit fuller details of their work to their authorities, and as a general rule these reports are forwarded to the Board of Trade with the statistical information required by law. The Amendment, if I understand it aright, seems to be designed to ensure that this is done in every case in future. But in the Government's view it is unnecessary to make this an absolute and general requirement. Subsection (1) of this clause requires the annual reports to be in such form and to contain such particulars as the Board may direct; and this power will enable the Board of Trade to require the inclusion of chief inspectors' reports in those sent in by local authorities.
There is nothing to prevent the present practice from continuing, but the Amendment seeks to make it obligatory to send to the Board in the statutory report under this Bill any additional report which the authority's chief inspector may have made about weights and measures matters. The reports which individual inspectors make to their local authority already receive widespread publicity and often cover many matters which are outside the scope of the Bill.
610
The Government do not consider that local authorities should be required to send on to the Board the comments made to them by their own officers, or that the Board should be required to accept these comments as part of the statutory report by the local authority itself. The Board are, of course, as they always have been, glad to consider any matters which local authorities wish to bring to their attention, either by way of letter or additions to the report required under the Bill. Similarly, the Board are always glad to hear from the Institute of Weights and Measures, the professional. body of the local inspectors: indeed, one of the Board's officers is at present in a personal capacity a Vice President of the Institute. This Clause and the next one are designed to encourage reasonable conformity in administration to match the uniformity in law. I hope, with that assurance, the noble Lord will agree that this is what is required and what is achieved by the clause as it stands.
LORD BURDEN: While appreciating the reply of the noble Lord and realizing that in future the Board may extend the scope of the information which they require, as they will have power to do, I think the noble Lord has rather missed what I feel is an important point: that should an adverse comment be made in a report following an inquiry on behalf of the Board, before that comment is published the weights and measures inspector himself should have the opportunity of being heard in his own defense and of submitting any relevant documents or recommendations which he may have made to his employing authority. I am sure it is not the wish of the noble Earl, the noble Lord or the Board of Trade that any man should be unjustly treated.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Indeed, I might have mentioned that point more specifically in my reply to the noble Lord. The chief inspector who was discontented with the rules laid dawn by his own authority could always tell the Board's inspecting officer conducting an inspection under Clause 40 about the fact, when the inspector was in the area. So no injustice is likely to the chief inspector of the local authority in the report to the Board of Trade. I thought the point had been covered, although I agree only

611
generally covered, when I said that the Board are always glad to consider any matters which local authorities wish to bring to their attention, either by way of letter or additions to the report required under the Bill. The noble Lord is more familiar than I am with the way these things are handled, but I should have thought that if an individual chief inspector wished a point to be made to the Board of Trade his local authority would not refuse to make it.
LORD BURDEN: I do not want to prolong this discussion, but I would point out that it may be a case of the chief inspector as against the local authority, because the local authority had failed, for one reason or another, to carry out recommendations made by the chief inspector of weights and measures. If the noble Lord or the noble Earl will look at the point to see whether by regulation or in any other way it can be covered, in view of the state of our business I shall he happy to withdraw the Amendment. But as there is some importance attached to this matter, I hope I shall get that assurance.
LORD ST. OSWALD: As I have explained to the noble Lord, my own feeling is that it is still covered; but naturally I will look into the point carefully.
LORD BURDEN: With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Inspection of and inquiries into local weights and measures arrangements]:
LORD LATHAM: This Amendment seeks a felicity of language which I hope will be the way to a felicity of action and of practice. Clause 40 deals with the question of inspection and inquiries into local weights and measures arrangements. Clause 40 (1) (b) states that the Board may
"require any inspector having duties under those arrangements to give such assistance and information as the officer may specify".
The Amendment which I have down suggests that there should be inserted before the word "specify" the word "reasonably". It is the view of the
612
authorities for weights and measures that there should be some element of reason in the actions of the Board's officers in carrying out the duties required of the weights and measures authorities; and that the powers which this clause, as drafted, would give to those officers are unreasonably wide and are unusual in connection with relationships between Government Departments and local authorities. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to accept this Amendment, which I think will make for better relations between the two bodies than under the rather arbitrary and somewhat rigid wording of the clause as it presently stands. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 21, after ("may") insert ("reasonably").—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am not sure that this Amendment is really necessary, but I have looked at it carefully and it seems to me that it could not do any harm. Therefore, I will say no more than that I am willing to accept it.
LORD BURDEN: How reasonable! On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.20 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: The purpose of this Amendment is to eliminate what appear to us to be superfluous words, the words, trader or other". Clearly, a trader is a person within the meaning of the clause, and there would Seem to be no necessity to specify one particular class of person. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that lawyers take the view that there is danger in defining. I think there is a maxim that to define is to limit. I suggest that in those circumstances the clause would be improved, and its clarity promoted, if these words were left out. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 22, leave out ("trader or other").—(Lord Latham.)
LORD SILKIN: I do not know whether the intention is deliberately to limit this, because I think those words have a limiting effect. As my noble friend has said, there is a doctrine eiusdem generis, and when you say, "trader or other person". what I take it you mean is a trader or somebody in the position of a trader.

613
The object of the Amendment is to enable the officer to make inquiries over a much wider field. I should be grateful to hear what are the real intentions of the Government on this provision.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The noble Lord who moved the Amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, have helped me to save time by so clearly explaining that their intentions are merely to clarify what this means. It is perfectly true that the words "any person" include "trader", and it is intended to do so in the Bill. We want it to be as wide as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, does. The reason why we have put in the word "trader" is that we want to make it clear to traders that the Board's inspecting officer is not going beyond his proper function in making inquiries of them, as well as of all other persons. Traders are a class of people who see a great deal of local authority's work in this field. They may suffer or benefit in many special ways from the way it is conducted, and therefore, in case there should be any doubt in the minds of the inspector or the traders about the propriety of their being consulted, we think it important to make it clear that they may be. That is not intended in any way to restrict the width of the term "person" as applied to everybody else.
LORD SILKIN: I wonder whether it does not restrict. I do not think my noble friend minds whether this Amendment is accepted or not, but I thick it ought to be looked alt to see whether those words are not restrictive.
LORD DERWENT: May I suggest that the proper wording—unless there is anything radically against it—is "any person including any trader." The trader is then mentioned as being included, but it still leaves it wide as "any person".
THE: EARL OF DUNDEE: I am quite willing to consider that.
LORD LATHAM: On that, I request the permission of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 41 [Expenses of authorities and compensation of officers]:
On Question, Whether Clause 41 shall be agreed to?
LORD JESSEL: Before -I say a word on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking my noble friend Lord Derwent for speaking and moving Amendments on my behalf at very short notice. Having read the OFFICIAL REPORT, I can see that he performed his task quite admirably. I should like the noble Earl in Charge of this Bill to have a look at Clause 41 (2) to see whether he thinks the principle behind this subsection is right. At present, we have a local authority administering weights and measures, and under the Bill that duty is being taken away and given to the county. The local authority is then asked to compensate weights and measures officers. I think that is the principle. Whether that is right and fair, I am not quite sure. All I can say is that several town clerks have written to me saying that when they have a perfectly satisfactory service taken away from them, it seems to them unfair that the local ratepayers Should be asked to pay to compensate these officers. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has had no notice of this point, and therefore I do not expect an answer to-day, unless he likes to give me one. But I should like to draw his attention to it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am obliged to my noble friend for raising this point, and I should like to say how glad the House is to see him back again. My immediate answer to my noble friend's point—which, as he rightly implied, is "off the cuff"—is that the ratepayers who would have to pay for the compensation of a displaced employee of that kind would also. presumably, be ratepayers in the larger authority which would become the local weights and measures authority as a result of this Bill replacing the former Act. Therefore, it would not necessarily be unfair that they should pay this compensation which, I think your Lordships would agree, is necessary and must be paid by someone. But as my noble friend rightly said, we have not had notice of the point he has raised, and I think it always saves time if one looks at it before giving a fuller reply.
LORD LATHAM: I should like to comment upon the remarks of the noble

615
Earl. The fact that the authority losing these powers are part of a larger authority to whom the powers will be transferred does not in any way mitigate the fact that the authority losing the powers will have to pay the compensation. It is true that if they did not themselves pay the compensation, and the larger authority—the county borough or the county council—did, they would have to pay something, though only a proportion, because the cost would he spread over the ratable value of the whole area of the county borough or county council. Therefore, it seems to me that there is an important point to be looked into, as to whether it is fair on the losing authority that they should be required themselves to bear the cost of compensation.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Inspectors of weights and measures]:
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "if any (including a deputy chief inspector) as the Board may approve or require as being" and to insert, "as they may think". The noble Lord said: I rise to move this Amendment, and it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if the next Amendment is taken with it. This clause is an important clause. In fact, it goes right to the question of the esteem in which the Board of Trade regard local government. In my submission, it is a clause which is an unwarrantable affront to local authorities. It says that the local weights and measures authority shall appoint:
"… and reasonably remunerate, a chief inspector of weights and measures and such number of other inspectors of weights and measures, if any (including a deputy chief inspector) as the Board may approve or require as being proper and sufficient for the efficient discharge in the authority's area of the functions conferred or imposed on inspectors …"
Local authorities are not infants. They do not want a Government Department to prescribe whether or not a deputy chief inspector is necessary; nor, if he is, do they want the consent of the Board when they proceed to appoint.
Then the clause goes on to say—and this is rather amusing—that the local authority
"shall …provide suitable premises for use by the persons so appointed in the discharge of those functions."
Really! Is there somebody drafting this measure who does not know that local authorities are autonomous bodies; that they are not infants, as I have said, and that they do not need to be "wet-nursed" in this way. This clause as drawn is an unwarrantable reflection upon local government. Is it supposed that a local authority, being, or becoming, a weights and measures authority, would not provide suitable accommodation for the staff; or that they would provide, for instance, accommodation as bad as that which I understand is provided at the Royal Courts of Justice on certain floors for those who seek justice?
It must be remembered also that this is not a grant-aided service. It is true that it will be a part of local government expenditure which is one of the factors determining the block grant, but it is not a direct grant-aided service. Why should the Board of Trade, with no real direct continuous knowledge of the functions of local government, presume to dictate to local government in respect of this particular activity—technical I agree; complicated I agree, but, relatively speaking, limited activity—of local authorities? Why should it presume to dictate—that is the word—how a local authority shall discharge their duty? If the local authority do not discharge their duty there is ample in the Bill, or generally, to bring the local authority to heel. The local authorities feel very strongly on this point, and I hope the noble Earl will be able either to accept the Amendment now or to see to it that the matter is reconsidered. If it is expected that this service is to operate satisfactorily the Government must carry with them the authorities who will administer it, and this is not the way to do it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 3, leave out from ("measures") to ("proper") in line 5, and insert ("as they may think").—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The noble Lord has put the case for the two Amendments, 72D and 72E, together, and I understand that he would like them to be discussed together. I will gladly do that, although in my reply I must make one or two distinctions between the two Amendments. The first

617
is on the question of whether the Board should have power to require the local authorities to appoint the number of inspectors which the Board think right. The noble Lord's Amendment would leave the local authority as the sole judge of what number of inspectors were required in their area, which is the position under the existing law. We fully accept the view that in most cases the local authorities will make a proper assessment of the needs of their areas, and will appoint a sufficient number of inspectors for the needs of the area; and in those cases the Board of Trade will obviously give approval to the arrange merits, as is provided for in this subsection. But if it becomes clear that in a particular area there is something amiss which suggests an insufficiency of inspectors, then the Board of Trade should, after investigation of the circumstances, be enabled to require the authority to appoint further inspectors.
While I appreciate what the noble Lord has said about the competence of local authorities, situations of this kind have arisen in the past—though they are exceptional—sometimes because the local authority has imposed too many ancillary duties on its inspectors. In such cases, all the Board can do at present is to make a recommendation to the authority; it has no power to do more than make the recommendation. I feel that, although cases of this kind are very rare, the Government ought to have powers available to deal with them if they do arise in future.
With regard to the noble Lord's other Amendment, about providing premises, this requirement its not a new one, like that with which the noble Lord's first Amendment was concerned because at the present time the obligation to provide premises conforming to certain minimum requirements is prescribed in regulations made under the Weights and Measures Act, 1904; and under that Act the premises have to be to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade. In the past, inspectors have sometimes shown that unsuitable premises have been provided, or that premises have become unsuitable in the light of changed circumstances, and I do not think that the Board's existing powers have proved unnecessary. Premises which are not suitable can result in harm to the standards, so that the service to the public in the area
618
is lowered. I do not think the Government would be justified in abandoning powers they have had since 1904 and which have in some cases been shown to be necessary.
If I may go back for a moment to the noble Lord's first Amendment, this Bill does of course extend, I think rightly, the Board of Trade's powers of control in certain directions, and we are very anxious to do so in a way that will carry the local authorities with us and not make them feel that they are being, as the noble Lord put it, treated as if they were children or being put in such a position that they may be unreasonably overridden. If the noble Lord feels, as he said, very strongly that the local authorities do resent this new provision at which his Amendment is aimed, I will consider it. He said that possibly the Board's other powers in this Bill—for instance, the power to publish its inspectors' reports, as well as the provisions enabling the Board to require local authorities to carry out their duties effectively in the interests of trader and consumer alike—might be sufficient to see that a sufficient number of inspectors was appointed, and we do not want to make the local authorities feel that we are acting unreasonably. If the noble Lord feels as strongly as he said he did, I shall be glad to consider whether we could not accept the principle of his first Amendment and rely on the more general powers that he mentioned in moving it.
LORD LATHAM: I am very much obliged, and I am sure the local authorities will be grateful for the co-operative and considerate way in which the noble Lord has been good enough to approach the first of these Amendments. In those circumstances, having regard to what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the first Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.40 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "Act", where that word last occurs. The noble Lord said: I should like to press this Amendment. It may well be that there have been one or two "black sheep" with regard to the provision of suitable premises for this particular service, but because of failure on the part of one or two I do not think that this aspersion should be cast upon the whole of the

619
local government authorities concerned. After all, happily, the whole tendency—a tendency which I am sure every noble Lord would wish to foster—is for there to be less and less interference by the central Government in the activities of local authorities. The orders and references which have been given to the traveling Commissions considering the structure of local government have stressed that point. Committees have been appointed to consider with the central Government how meticulous interference in local government activities could be avoided.
Now there is a proposal—I cannot think it is really serious—that especially and, so far as I know, only as regards the activities of local authorities in respect to weights and measures the local authorities shall provide suitable premises. So far as I know, there is no such provision in the Education Act saying that an education authority shall provide suitable premises for their administrative staff. There is, of course, provision in the Education Act with regard to providing schools. In connection with housing there is no such requirement cast on the authorities. If it is desired, as we all desire, that the relationship between the Board of Trade and local authorities in the operation and discharge of the duties to be cast on local authorities by this Bill are to be satisfactory and things are to work smoothly, I beg the noble Earl to go a little further—we greatly appreciate his consideration this afternoon up to this moment and take out these offending words.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 7, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 9.—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Although I have already referred to this Amendment, I ought perhaps to say a further word since the noble Lord has said he would like to press it. I have done my best to meet him in regard to the first Amendment. On this Amendment I do not think the position is quite the same; nor do I think I can accept the noble Lord's view that we are casting any kind of aspersion on local authorities in putting these words in the Bill. As I have said, it is a provision which everybody knows is unlikely to have much applica-
620
tion to the majority of authorities, but it is not a new one. I could not help feeling that the noble Lord was arguing this matter as if we were doing something new. As I reminded your Lordships a few minutes ago, this power to require suitable premises to be provided has been possessed by the Board of Trade for 56 years, since the Weights and Measures Act, 1904.
LORD LATHAM: Not in the Statute; in Orders or Regulations.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, but it is not new. The Orders are under the Weights and Measures Act, 1904. We have found, in some cases, that these powers have proved necessary. The provision of premises for standard equipment is a very technical business indeed, and many authorities need advice and voluntarily seek advice. They are not too proud to come and ask especially for the advice of the Board of Trade; and I cannot feel that it is really unreasonable, or that it is derogatory to authorities in general, that these powers, which have existed for such a long time and have sometimes been found necessary, should be continued. I am sure that nobody would really expect that the Board of Trade intend to use them in any unreasonable or contemptuous manner.
LORD SHEPHERD: I support my noble friend in this matter. This is not a small point but an important point of principle. The Government are not, in my judgment, being very consistent. One moment they are saying that we must give local authorities greater power, I suppose to attract into the councils people of a higher standard. But the success of this measure will not he purely in the words of the Bill; it will he in the quality and the standard of the inspectors. These people will be appointed by the local authorities Therefore, I think that we could safely leave to the local authorities the decision as to what premises are to be provided. If inspectors of the right calibre are appointed, they will be the persons who will press the local authorities to provide the right premises, if the authority do not in the first instance provide them. I think the Minister must realize that many local authorities who are proud and give great service would

621
resent something appearing in an Act from which it would appear that the Government do not trust them in regard to the provision of premises. I hope that my noble friend will press this matter.
LORD LATHAM: There is one further point. It is the case, of course, that, by regulations made under the authority of the earlier Act (I forget exactly the date), a provision of this kind was included; but one must appreciate that the status and quality of local government is vastly different now from what it was then. For instance, in those days many local authorities had part-time officers; many of them had officers who were not trained. In those days, the powers conferred upon and exercised by local authorities were quite different from what they are now. After all, local authorities are now staffed by trained, qualified people—good, upright, honest citizens, discharging functions in the public good. Although it may, for reasons which were best known then, have been necessary to give this power to the Board of Trade by way of regulation, I submit that it is not necessary to impose this obligation at the present time upon self-respecting local government authorities in this country. I hope that the noble Earl will reconsider this, otherwise I feel that we ought to take the sense of the Committee.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Of course, I entirely accept the general remarks of the noble Lord about the quality and character of the local authorities. But many of these local authorities, not fifty years ago but now, voluntarily ask the advice of the Board of Trade about their premises—they do not always consider that it is a matter which they are able to decide for themselves—and I think that the local authorities are perhaps being a little unduly sensitive about this. I do not think there is anything derogatory to them in having in the Bill a provision which has existed for so long and which still now, in 1960, sometimes proves to be necessary and desirable.
On Question, Amendment negatives.
4.49 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON moved to add to the clause:
"() So much of this section, with the exception of subsection (3), as applies to the appointment of a chief inspector of weights
622
and measures and a deputy chief inspector of weights and measures, shall not apply to the County of London, and references in the said subsection (3), and in any other place in this Act where it occurs, to a chief inspector of weights and measures or a deputy chief inspector of weights and measures shall, in relation to the County of London, be deemed to refer to such person or persons as the local weights and measures authority shall from time to time appoint."
The noble Lord said: This is a simple Amendment and I shall not detain the Committee long in explaining it. Clause 42 provides that local weights and measures authorities shall appoint chief inspectors. This Amendment seeks to add a subsection to the clause, to exempt from the provisions of Clause 42 the County of London. It is an Amendment which may appeal to Her Majesty's Government since it seeks to maintain the status quo. At the present time in the County of London the functions that would be functions of the chief inspector are actually exercised by the chief officer of the Public Control Department. That has been found to be wholly satisfactory, and to appoint a chief inspector and deputy chief inspector would only add redundant staff to the establishment of the County Council. I would add that there is, perhaps, an additional reason why the present practice should be allowed to continue. The recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London presumably will result sooner or later in legislation, and we may therefore wish at that time to make different arrangements. I therefore beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 28, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Faringdon.)
LORD BURDEN: I am not in any way apposing what has been indicated as the intention of the Amendment—namely, to maintain the status quo so far as the London County Council are concerned—because, as my noble friend Lord Faringdon has explained, there is no chief weights and measures inspector to the L.C.C. but a specialized department, such matters being dealt with at administrative level. In the phrasing of the Amendment, however, the words "County of London" may be held to include the metropolitan boroughs. Those boroughs have weights and measures inspectors and I am sure that it is not the intention of the Amendment moved

623
by my noble friend to seek to disturb the status quo in relation to either the L.C.C. or the metropolitan boroughs at the present time, whatever the future may hold.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, for the brevity with which he moved his Amendment, and I will do my best to be equally short in replying to it. The present position in the London County Council area and one or two other areas is that there is a Public Control Department, with a chief officer and deputy chief officer who are responsible for the administration of a number of functions devolving on the authority, including weights and measures. They have in the area four weights and measures offices, each of which is in charge of a senior inspector, and comprising in all more than 20 qualified inspectors. The senior inspectors have actual physical charge of the local and working standards and are responsible to the chief officer of the Public Control Department for the day-to-day running of their offices.
I would assure the noble Lord that the provisions of this Bill and of the clause will not interfere with the present set-up in the L.C.C. The chief officer of the Public Control Department will still be able to retain overall administrative control of the weights and measures offices and staffs. But as Her Majesty's Government have accepted the Hodgson Committee's view that the Board of Trade should bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring efficiency in what is a locally administered service. I believe it is an essential part of the administrative arrangements proposed by the Bill that responsibility for technical matters in a local weights and measures service must devolve upon a properly qualified officer as provided in subsection (1) of this clause—namely, the chief inspector. The question at Issue is not the size or efficiency of the authority, but whether or not qualified officers shall be responsible for certain priority technical matters. I believe that if this principle is right, it applies with at least equal force to the larger authority which tends as a rule to have more technical equipment than the smaller one. I hope the noble Lord will agree with the justification of that.
LORD FARINGDON: The noble Earl says that the chief officer of the Public Control Department will retain his supervisory position in relation to the inspectors and sub-inspectors throughout the county area. Can he tell me whether, if this Bill becomes an Act in its present form, it will entail the appointment of two more superior officials, additional to those there are at present? And does he think that the operation of the Public Control Department or the chief officers has in fact been unsatisfactory and therefore that this provision is necessary?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not think it would require the appointment of two more officials. What would be required would be that the chief inspector and his deputy must hold certificates of qualification as inspectors of weights and measures. That is laid down in Clause I of the Bill, and the Amendment would remove the necessity for that.
LORD LATHAM: I gather from what the noble Earl has said that there would be a kind of dichotomy of responsibility and that the Board of Trade would go not to the chief officer of the Public Control Department, who administratively is responsible for this as well as other functions and duties, but to the chief inspector. That is not good administration and I am quite sure that on reflection the noble Earl would not approve it as being proper administration. There is the additional point that the question of the government of Greater London is under consideration or, at least, a Royal Commission on it has published its Report; and on that ground also it seems to be imprudent to proceed, if not to appoint, to nominate, two persons who shall be chief inspector and deputy chief inspector, pending seeing what form the future government of London will take. I hope, in those circumstances, that the exception can be accepted.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: All that this subsection does, I think, to require local weights and measures authorities to:
"appoint from among persons holding certificates of qualification under section forty-three of this Act, … a chief inspector of weights and measures and such number of other inspectors of weights and measures, if any, (including a deputy chief inspector) as the Board may approve or require".
The chief inspector is responsible to the authority for technical matters:

625
and although I always appreciate the argument about doing things together. I do not think that the provisions of this particular clause would in any way prejudice the combination of the future consideration of the general responsibilities of the London County Council as a result of the Report of the Royal Commission and their particular functions under this Bill.
5.0 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: May I ask the noble Earl whether he will state quite clearly whether this clause will upset the arrangements under which the London County Council at present carry cut the duties of dealing with weights and measures? It appears, from the face of it, that it will require a complete reorganization of that department, which, so far as I am aware, carries out its duties acceptably both to the London County Council and to the Board of Trade. If it means entirely upsetting a completely efficient organization, surely the noble Earl ought to reconsider it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, I do not Wink there is any ground for the idea that the Board would have to go to the chief inspector behind the backs of the authority, because the chief inspector is responsible to the authority, not to the Board. I am sorry if I have put it the wrong way round.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: The noble Earl put it exactly the opposite way, I thought.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Then I have done so inadvertently. What I was trying to say, as I told the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, in my original reply, was that the provisions of this Bill will not interfere with the present set-up of the L.C.C. The chief officer of the Public Control Department will be able to retain overall administrative control of the weights and measures offices and staff. The Government have the general responsibility, not of interfering with the particular way with which local authorities do it, but of seeing that they do it in a satisfactory way. We have accepted that responsibility as a result of the Hodgson Committee's Report. All that we feel entitled to require, as in
626
this clause, is that the chief inspector and his deputy shall hold certificates of qualification.
LORD SILKIN: If it is intended that the chief officer of Public Control should still be responsible and should be the person through whom the Board of Trade will deal, then, as the noble Earl has said, he must have a certificate as an inspector. Normally he would not have Will it not therefore be necessary for the London County Council to appoint a special person under the chief officer of Public Control who will have the qualifications of an inspector, in order to meet the requirements of this clause in the Bill? If that is so, is that not exactly what my noble friend has said—that it means the appointment of additional officers? May I suggest that if it is the intention that the chief officer of Public Control should be recognised in the way proposed, he would be in an exceptional position as against other officers and it should be stated so in the Bill? If it were stated that the chief officer of Public Control in the case of the L.C.C. is to be recognized as the person dealing with weights and measures, both vis-à-vis the London County Council and the Board of Trade, then I should have thought that that would meet the case. But it would still require an Amendment of the Bill and it would only be saying in other words what this Amendment says.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It might be that the L.C.C. would have to appoint additional persons if the present holders of office did not hold certificates. But surely an alternative would be that the present functionaries could obtain certificates by showing they had the necessary qualifications. I do not think that that is a matter for us to decide. What we require is that the chief inspector and his deputy, under subsection (1), should hold certificates.
LORD SILKIN: The chief officer of Public Control is appointed to administer a relatively large department. He is not a technician. It may be that the organization of the London County Council needs revision, but that is the way in which they have carried out that function. He administers a large Department which deals, among other things, with weights and measures. But to require

627
that a person appointed as an administrator should hold the technical qualifications of an inspector of weights and measures is to do something which I should have thought wholly inappropriate in order to secure tidiness in this Bill.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I think, with all respect, that the noble Earl is confusing administrative and technical matters. Administrative matters are not necessarily dealt with by technicians Technicians have their functions; administrators have other functions. I call to mind a case with which I was very well acquainted. The Metropolitan Asylums Board, when it existed, had as its chief administrator a layman, not a doctor; and it was never administered so well as during, that period, when it was administered very efficiently indeed. But he was not required to qualify as a doctor in order to be the chief administrative officer. It seems to me quite ridiculous to require the London County Council to upset a highly efficient organization in order to make it fit in with the pattern of what someone sitting in the Board of Trade thinks is the proper method or organization.
This provision, as it stands, will require the London County Council to compel a senior officer and his deputy, if they have not already got them, to acquire certain technical qualifications, or to sack those officers, or to appoint two superfluous officers who will be supposed to be doing very much the same work as the chief administrative officer is doing. Surely the noble Earl can look at this matter again and recognize, as legislation has recognized for a long time past, that the organization of the London County Council is of a distinctive character and is settled generally by legislative provisions different from those of the rest of the country.
LORD FARINGDON: I am rather distressed by the noble Earl's reply to this Amendment. To tell the truth, I thought he was going to accept it. His reply seems to me very curious in effect. What the noble Earl is saying is that the administration of the weights and measures organization in the County of
628
London is unsatisfactory. This is really what he is saying: that the Government do not consider satisfactory the present arrangement, under which a large number of inspectors, who no doubt have proper qualifications, come under the chief officer of the Public Control Department. If he is not saying that, then why does he want us to appoint two extra senior officials, at considerable expense, to do jobs which are already being effectively done and whose existence may, indeed, upset an administrative department which is working quite satisfactorily? I must say that I am a little surprised by the noble Earl's attitude.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I should naturally like to pay attention to the noble Lord's arguments, which he has repeated with unswerving conviction. I gather that his contention is that, although in every other part of the country chief inspectors ought to be qualified persons and have a certificate of qualification, in the London area it is not necessary that they should because of the difference in organization between London and the rest of the country. I do not know that I could entirely accept that argument, but I will certainly look into the matter, in the light of what the noble Lord and others of your Lordships have said, because I recognize that your Lordships would not have pressed this matter so strongly if you had not been doing so with a very strong desire to improve matters.
LORD LATHAM: May I inform the noble Earl that legislation is littered with special provisions for the London County Council?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I did not know that any of them were of such a peculiar nature as to require that a very important officer should not possess a certificate which everybody else has to have in other parts of the country.
LORD LATHAM: In due time the noble Earl will learn the peculiarities of London.
LORD SILKIN: I would point out that everyone who has spoken on this matter has had years of experience of the administration of the London County Council, and speaks from that experience.
LORD LATHAM: And with complete impartiality, of course.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It is because of that fact that. I have said I will consider what your Lordships have said. I should not dream of considering it if at had been put forward by people who had no experience of the London County Council.
LORD FARINGDON: I thank the noble Earl for the very accommodating way in which he has received this Amendment, and, on the understanding which he has given, I ask leave to withdraw it at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 42 shall be agreed to?
LORD SHEPHERD: Before this clause is put to the House for approval, may I ask the noble Earl if he could give the reason why, on page 39, line 1, it calls for authorities to "reasonably remunerate"? Is it really necessary that that should be put in—that authorities will have to pay these people? Of course they will have to pay them. Why is it being put in the Bill in this manner?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Not long ago I accepted an Amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Latham, that the officers of the Board of Trade should behave in a reasonable manner. I was not quite sure if it was necessary to assume that they might not. It may not be necessary to assume that anybody will behave in an unreasonable manner; but I think that there are probably a few people who would he a little more happy and comfortable if this clause retained the provision that they must be reasonably remunerated.
LORD BURDEN: May I assure my noble friend that it is not an unknown thing for a tiny minority of local councils to act unreasonably so far as their officers are concerned?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: That is what, very diffidently, I have been trying to put to your Lordships with regard to some other Amendments.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It seems to me, on this particular word in this particular place, that it is not put in to safeguard the
630
officer It seems to me that this is put in to safeguard the Treasury. I do not know; but it may be thought that local authorities are spending too much on the remuneration of their inspectors of weights and measures. You need to go back to the famous Standing Committee on Trusts of 1919 to look up the proper definition of the word "reasonable". You should go and look at it; it is extraordinary. It means that it satisfies one but does not satisfy the other. "Reasonable" means almost anything you like to make it mean. If the word was "properly" remunerated or "adequately" remunerated, then I think that perhaps there would be no such objection.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I have heard differences of opinion about the interpretation of the word "adequate", too. But, whoever is being safeguarded here, it is perfectly obvious that somebody wants the safeguard to be reasonable.
LORD LATHAM: Somebody else.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Inspectors not to act as adjusters of equipment]:
5.14 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: This Amendment runs with the other Amendments to Clause 44. Here again it is perhaps a matter of language. As the clause is at present drawn, it requires that there shall be provided
"an organisation for the adjustment of weighing or measuring equipment. …"
Local authorities take the view that in many cases there is no need to set up an entirely separate organization for the adjustment of weighing or measuring equipment.
It is incontestable that so far as the majority of local authorities are concerned, the work will consist merely of the adjustment of simple weights and measures. Such work is usually carried out by an assistant in a weights and measures office or a temporary verification center as the case may be. There would seem to be no reason at all why this arrangement should not be continued and why local authorities should be required to establish a separate organization. I suggest that, in those circumstances, the noble Earl—
LORD JESSEL: With great respect, they are not required. It is said that they "may provide", which is rather different.
LORD LATHAM: The words are "may provide and place under the supervision of. …"
LORD JESSEL: That is not the same as "required".
LORD LATHAM: It may be that it is not "required", but in any case why "an organization"? Why not just "arrangements" for dealing with the matter? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
>Page 39, line 41, leave out ("an organization") and insert ("arrangements").—(Lord Latham.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: Clause 44 prohibits weights and measures inspectors from acting as adjusters of weights and measures but allows the local authorities to set up a separate organization and put it under their chief inspectors. The existing law enables inspectors, with Board of Trade approval, to adjust weights and measures. This was criticized by the Hodgson Committee on the grounds that it is wrong in principle for inspectors to undertake the adjustment of weights and measures which they are subsequently responsible for testing and certifying as accurate. In response to the representations of local authorities, to the effect that they had been providing a useful service in certain cases which enabled small traders to escape quite unnecessary expenses, the Bill provides for such work to continue. There are however, two safeguards. The adjustment must be done by the local authority through an organization which, although it may be placed under the chief inspector, has to be kept separate from the work of the other inspecting staff. Secondly, the fees will be in future prescribed by the Board of Trade so as to avoid any question of the local authority competing unfairly with private traders who do most of the repair and adjustment work.
Until the noble Lord spoke, I wondered why he preferred "arrangements" to "an organization". Frankly, that puzzled me in this context. It is now clear, I think, why he wants it, but after
632
his explanation I must say that it seems to me that its use here would tend to blur the distinction between the adjusting organization and the weights and measures service, and on those very grounds we are opposed to it. In case noble Lords elsewhere put this interpretation upon it, I should say that the use of the word "organization" does not imply that separate premises need be used. Obviously, it is up to the council to decide how many of its departments should be housed together. It does, however, imply that the adjusting organization shall report direct to the chief inspector and have a separate system of accounting, so that the cost and charges for ordinary weights and measures testing work and for any special adjusting work carried on by the local authority can be kept separate—that is the purpose. The word "organization" indicates by intention, in fact, that the adjusting and the weights and measures service shall be seen to be separate, save in so far as they report to the local authority through the same officer, the chief inspector for the area. This is a point which we consider very important and which other noble Lords in the House, I think, by reason of Amendments they are moving, also consider to be very important.
LORD LATHAM: Having regard to that explanation, slightly exiguous though it be, I ask the leave of the House to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved in clause 44 to leave out "weighing or measuring equipment" and insert "weights and measures". The noble Lord said: With the permission of the House, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 together. Arising out of what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, when replying to the noble Lord, Lord Latham, I must say that I do not like either "arrangements" or "an organization", because I do not see any need for this organization to be set up at all. As the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, has said, the Hodgson Committee were dead against it. I spoke about this matter in the Second Reading debate, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, replied to me. I confess that I was not satisfied with

633
his answer, and although he has since written me a very courteous letter I remain unsatisfied.
I see no objection to local authorities setting up an organization to deal with actual weights and measures, but what I do not want them to do is to start "monkeying about" with the equipment. If they were allowed to do this, I see a danger of weights and measures inspectors becoming easy-going and tolerant in the case of work carried out by an organization under their control. I think one might even have a situation where a trader might feel that it was to his advantage to go to that organization, because if he were found guilty of an offence, he could say "All my weighing equipment has been adjusted by the local authority", which he might think would give him an advantage.
I seriously contend that there is absolutely no need at all to give the local authority these new powers. Adequate facilities are already available. I should just like to quote a few figures. I am informed that to-day there are over 2,500 qualified weighing machine service engineers available, working from more than 500 service depôts. There are more than 500 service vans in current use. These service engineers are skilled craftsmen who have to keep abreast of developments by frequent training and refresher courses. In nearly every case where equipment goes wrong, it is a new spare part that is required. And where is it to be obtained? Not from the local authority. The new spare part has to come from the manufacturer of the weighing machine; and it is much better that he should do the maintenance.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, replying to me during his winding-up speech on Second Reading, said that it would be helpful to the small trader if he could get a minor adjustment made to some simple equipment. But how is one to ascertain what is a minor adjustment? I submit that the machine manufacturers are perfectly capable of looking after both major and minor adjustments, in the big towns, in the small towns and in the country. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will think again and accept my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 41, leave out ("weighing or measuring equipment") and insert ("weights and measures").—(Lord Jessel.)
5.25 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: I should like strongly to support this Amendment of my noble friend, Lord Jessel. I am rather astonished that this clause should have found its way into the Bill. It not only disregards the recommendations of the Hodgson Committee; it goes even further in the opposite direction, and permits local officers to supervise an organization for adjusting weighing machines as well as weights. This seems to me objectionable, both on grounds of principle and in practice. In principle, it seems to me wrong that an inspecting authority should also have the authority to run an organization for making adjustments to weighing machines. This point was very strongly put by the Hodgson Committee. They said:
"We consider it to be wrong in principle that an inspector should adjust the equipment that he is later to certify as being correct."
In the second place, I think it is wrong in principle to extend this form of municipal trading into a field which, as my noble friend, Lord Jessel, has already explained, is adequately covered by the present organization. He has already told us of the difficulties which might in practice arise over servicing. He mentioned the question of spare parts. I would also mention the question of replacement machines, for any reputable manufacturer supplies a trader with a machine while his broken-down machine is taken away to be repaired. It would be a burden on any local authority organization to have to carry a stock of these machines to provide replacements. This clause is disliked by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and, I think, by other national organizations; and I know at least one very senior chief inspector of weights and measures who equally would prefer this Amendment. I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will look at it again very closely.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, most of the background to this Amendment was already discussed in the last Amendment and does not require repetition. I should like to point out to my noble friends who have spoken on this Amendment that not all local authorities have

635
availed themselves of the present power to run an adjusting service; but experience has shown that in the more remote and less densely populated parts of the country such a service can be of great benefit to traders who cannot rely on scale-repairing firms to carry out the adjustment of weights and measures, because the firms find such repairs uneconomical.
My noble friend Lord Jessel gave figures of the numbers of such firms—and there is a very large number. But I wondered, as he was speaking, just how well spread they were through the country; how accessible they were to all parts of the country and, therefore, to all traders. For these reasons, the Government think that a local weights and measures authority should not be debarred from making available an adjusting service for weighing or measuring machines, as well as for weights and measures, if the authority is satisfied that there is a local need. And the criterion is the local need.
There is here an inherent conflict of interest between the scale-repairing trade and the local authorities who seek to give traders the speedy and economical adjustment service which they need to conform with the requirements of the law. Noble Lords have argued that it is wrong in principle for the local authorities themselves to enter into the field of trade in competition with some of their ratepayers. The Government agree that it would be undesirable for the local authority's service to compete unfairly with that offered by commercial repairers, by virtue of the fact that the local authority is also responsible for testing the equipment, but it would be equally undesirable, it seems to us, that the repairer should be enabled to press the trader to buy new equipment on the ground that adjustment was uneconomical for him when this was not really necessary, or was beyond what is necessary to comply with the law as to accuracy. And I am told that weights and measures authorities have, in fact, reported such cases.
As I pointed out earlier, there are two safeguards in the Bill. First, the fees are to be prescribed by the Board of Trade, so that the local authority will not be able to subsidise its service.
636
Secondly, this is one of the aspects of the chief inspectors' work which will be reviewed by the Board of Trade inspector under Clause 40, to prevent anything which noble Lords might regard as an abuse. I have now put my point of view to the noble Lords who moved and supported this Amendment, and I hope that they will see the sincerity and substance of it.
LORD DERWENT: May I ask my noble friend whether, if an organization of this kind is set up, it will deal with all forms of weighing or only such forms as it chooses, because it would not be economic unless it does all forms of weighing. Yesterday, in answer to another Amendment of mine, my noble friend Lord Dundee pointed out that the inspectors now have to inspect quite different machines, which weigh and measure large deliveries in bulk and this had not been part of their duties up till now. Presumably, they will understand all these heavier weighing machines. Or are they to look after only the simpler ones?
LORD LATHAM: In answering, could the noble Lord also say whether weights and measures authorities are at present doing the work it is sought to prevent their doing by this Amendment?
LORD ST. OSWALD: No; they are doing only part of the work. They are inspecting weights and measures, but not machinery: this is done under an entirely separate organization. They would have to extend their work to the inspection of weighing and measuring machinery. My answer to my noble friend is that I imagine, though again I am answering very much "off the cuff", that the type of inspection that a given local authority's organization could undertake would depend on the nature of that organization. I do not know that all the organizations will necessarily be absolutely uniform throughout the country.
LORD JESSEL: If local authorities at this moment are adjusting weighing machinery and equipment, as the noble Lord, Lord Latham, seems to suggest, they are doing something illegal.
LORD LATHAM: I did not suggest that they were. I asked the question, whether they were.
LORD JESSEL: I stand corrected. I wanted to make the position clear. As regards the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, about whether existing makers of machinery are giving a service in the remote parts of England, I am informed that with service lorries they can give a perfectly satisfactory service dealing with any part of England. I am afraid that I remain completely unimpressed by the Government's answer, and I think that many of us on this side of the House will remain unimpressed. I do not think that the Committee stage is suitable for a Division—I believe that we are all agreed about that. We want to get on and see what the Government are going to do as a result of representations we have made during this stage. Therefore, to-day I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LATHAM: This Amendment and the two following deal with related matters, one of which has already been dealt with, and the earlier Amendment has been withdrawn—namely, the proposal with regard to organization. The clause leaves to the Board of Trade the determination of charges to be made. Local authorities take the view that weights and measures authorities should be the authorities to determine the charges to be made for work which they will carry out. It does not seem to me in any way to impinge upon the validity of the proposal that local authorities should be given a wider duty—namely, that of dealing with the adjustment of equipment—if they are allowed to determine the fees in respect of work which has been done. I imagine that if fees are to be determined and prescribed by the Board of Trade, it will be a pretty long list, saying how much will be charged to fit a bolt here or put on a nut there; to adjust this or that. This is a matter which I think, and the local authorities think, should be left to them. They are not uninformed or inexperienced in dealing with a matter like this. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 42, leave out ("the") and insert ("such").—(Lord Latham.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: Under present law the Board do not have this power, but a recommended scale of charges is
638
circulated by the Board of Trade to all weights and measures authorities in an endeavor to achieve uniformity. While the Government have no reason to believe that any local authority would deliberately adopt an under-cutting policy in adjusting charges, nevertheless they consider that it would be in the public interest to make these charges uniform and statutory, so that the whole question of local authorities attempting to undercut private repairers and adjusters in efforts to get their business cannot arise. That is the reason why I would ask the noble Lord to leave the clause as it stands.
LORD LATHAM: Would the noble Lord say how the Board of Trade propose to prescribe—by statutory instrument? If it is, then it can be altered only by legislative procedure.
LORD ST. OSWALD: That is a point on which I regret I cannot inform the noble Lord at the moment.
LORD LATHAM: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment, on the understanding that information on that point may be available on Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The second half of Clause 44 prohibits inspectors acting as adjusters of weighing and measuring equipment except during a period of two years from the commencement of the section. The implication of this is that during this period of two years they may act as adjusters of any weighing equipment if they are expressly authorized to do so by the Board of Trade. This covers the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Latham. This provision is intended to save their powers under the present law for two years. In fact, however, under existing legislation the Board has been able to authorize inspectors to adjust only weights and measures, and the saving under the provision goes too wide and carries the implication that inspectors could also, when authorized by the Board, adjust weighing and measuring equipment: other than weights and measures during the two-years period. This Amendment accordingly corrects this and restricts the saving to weights and measures only, and the Board's power to authorize inspectors to act as adjusters during those

639
two years is limited to the adjustment of weights and measures.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 45, after ("except") insert ("in the case of weights or measures").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 [Inspectors' fees]:
5.40 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: The purpose of this Amendment is to fill what appears to be a lacuna in the Bill. So far as I can see and I am advised, nowhere in the Bill is there any requirement upon the Board of Trade to prescribe the fees to be charged by local authorities, notwithstanding what the noble Lord said in dealing with the previous Amendment. Fees may be prescribed; but it is in the interests of local authorities that there should be a clear direction to the Board to do so. Clause 11 (2) of the Bill merely refers to "the prescribed fee", and there is no obligation on the Board to prescribe what the fee shall be. It is thought that that defect should be remedied, and with that in view, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 1, at beginning insert—
("(1) An inspector may take in respect of the testing of weighing and measuring equipment, and the costs incurred in connection therewith, such fees as the Board shall by order prescribe.").—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment seeks to put into Clause 45 a specific authorization to inspectors to charge prescribed fees for testing, weighing and measuring equipment, and I appreciate that the noble Lord has put it down in the desire to fill a lacuna. I think the Bill already does what the noble Lord desires. He referred to Clause 11 (2), and at line 36 it says:
"… any regulations made under section fourteen thereof, and to the payment by that person of the prescribed fee …"
Then, if your Lordships look at page 48, line 16, under Clause 59—and that is the definition clause—you will see that "prescribed" is there defined as follows:
"'prescribed' means prescribed by the Board by regulations".
640
I think that as under Clause 11 the inspector is authorized to test the equipment brought to him only on the payment of the prescribed fee, and as under the definition given in Clause 59 "'prescribed' means prescribed by the Board by regulations", the noble Lord's point is already met by the Bill as it is now. I take it that he agrees with the desirability of having uniform charges of this kind for different parts of the country, and that he wishes to confine himself to making sure that proper arrangements are made for the fees being prescribed by the Board of Trade.
LORD LATHAM: That one is a clean catch. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Offences in connection with office of inspector]:
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved to add to subsection (1)
"Provided that before canceling, or suspending the validity of, a certificate the Board shall give the inspector concerned notice in writing that he may make verbal or written representations to the Board within a period of twenty-eight days from the service of the notice; and if any such representations are made by the inspector within that period the Board shall take them into account before determining whether or not to cancel, or suspend the validity of, his certificate."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the next one deal substantially with the same point namely, that a weights and measures inspector should have the right of appeal in the event of a cancellation or suspension of the validity of a certificate, the cancellation or suspension being an act of the Board of Trade. The difference between the two Amendments, as I see it, is that my Amendment provides for an appeal to the Board of Trade, whereas the following Amendment provides for the setting up of a tribunal. I think, on balance, I prefer the second Amendment. seeing that my Amendment provides for an appeal to the Board of Trade who would be judge and jury in their own cause. It is, I think, the accepted principle in local government, in railways and in other large concerns that before a professional man has his livelihood finally taken away from him, even if he is thought to be guilty of certain unprofessional conduct, he should have a right

641
of appeal. In effect, that is what I am asking for by my Amendment and what my noble friends Lord Latham and Lord Silkin are asking for by theirs.
It is not anticipated that it will be necessary for the machinery provided for in my noble friends' Amendment to be called into operation often, yet it is a safeguard which the men feel they ought to have. They attach great importance to it, and I hope the noble Earl will be able to meet us in some way so far as one or other of these Amendments is concerned. I am not attempting to move my noble friends' Amendment—they are each more eloquent than I and can put forward their own—bust am merely moving the Amendment in my name on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 30, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Burden.)
LORD LATHAM: It may be convenient if we discuss these two Amendments together. The purpose, as has been indicated by my noble friend Lord Burden, is to give the right of appeal. The Board have an absolute discretion and power either to cancel or to suspend and inspect a certificate, and can really put an end to a man's life's work and his life's prospects. In those circumstances, I am sure we should all agree that there should be a right of appeal. I am not wedded to the form of appeal tribunal which indicated in my Amendment, so long as there is some adequate and proper appeal for a person in danger of having his certificate cancelled or suspended. I hope the noble Earl will he able to indicate that, in principle, the Board of Trade accept this proposal.
LORD SILKIN: I do not wish to argue the general principle of giving a person who may be deprived of his job and livelihood the opportunity of making representations, but I must say to my noble friend ford Burden that I do not like his Amendment. because in principle I do not like giving a person merely the right to make representations, possibly in writing, and for him never to know to what extent those representations have been taken into consideration and not to have the right to be heard and possibly to cross-examine anybody who has been called in evidence against him. Therefore, if the noble Earl feels dis-
642
posed to accept the principle that an inspector shall have the right to appeal in some form or other, I hope he will give careful consideration to it so as to make the appeal an effective one, with a right to state his case, the right to cross-examine any witnesses against him and the right to call witnesses on his own behalf.
LORD BURDEN: I think I made it clear that I was not particularly wedded to my form of words, either.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: May I say a word on Lord Burden's Amendment first? What his Amendment would do would be to oblige the Board, before canceling or suspending the validity of a certificate, to give the inspector concerned an opportunity of making representations to the Board as to why they should not take the action contemplated, and to take these representations into account in arriving at a decision. Of course, the Board would not think of canceling an inspector's certificate without giving him the opportunity of putting any arguments he might have for their not taking this action. I agree that in a serious matter of this kind it would be preferable for this to be specifically laid down in the Bill itself. I will agree to do this, but I should like time to consider a specific way in which it should be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has expressed a preference for a more independent tribunal, and the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has indicated that he prefers the Amendment standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Latham. I had intended to make a reply in not precisely the same terms to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Latham, because it does not ask for quite the same thing, but as I have undertaken to consider Lord Burden's Amendment, perhaps I may save time by saying that I will give equal consideration to the arguments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Latham and Lord Silkin. I appreciate that it might be better to have a tribunal rather than merely a right of representation to the Board.
LORD BURDEN: With that assurance, which I am sure will give satisfaction to the officers who will have to carry out the provisions of the Act in

643
the field, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Transitional provisions as to inspectors]:
5.54 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am honored to see that the name of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin is associated with mine in this Amendment, which I do not think needs much explanation. As the clause is drafted at present, a person who has obtained a certificate of qualification under Section 8 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1904, to act as an inspector of weights and measures, but who was not actually holding an appointment with a local authority as an inspector immediately before the coming into force of this Part of the Bill, would, if he wanted to obtain a post as an inspector in this country, have to sit for another examination and obtain a fresh certificate of qualification under Clause 43 of the Bill. That is not what we intended, and this change of wording is put down in order to correct the omission. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 42, leave out ("that") and insert ("any")—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD SILKIN: All I need say is that I am proud to be in such distinguished company on this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SILKIN: I should have thought that this Amendment was simply making abundantly clear what ought to be clear anyway, and that is that the person who holds the certificate, and whose certificate it is desired to carry over until the coming into operation of the Act, should have a certificate which is in force at the time and not a certificate which has expired. It may be that those words are unnecessary, and they can carry the implication that it must be a valid certificate on the day. I thought I would put it down in order to make quite sure that that is the case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 43, after ("1904") insert ("and in force at the said date").—(Lord Silkin.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am obliged to the noble Lord for making this point
644
clear in Committee. I think I owe him an explanation of why I think the Amendment is unnecessary. Subsection (1) of Clause 47 maintains the legal status of local government officers who have obtained certificates of qualification as inspectors of weights and measures under Section 8 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1904. Under that section there is no power which exists for the Board of Trade to cancel or suspend any of these certificates. They remain valid anyhow during the lifetime of the holder.
LORD SILKIN: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, in subsection (2), to add after paragraph (b):
(c) appointed under any local Act regulating the sale of coal in a burgh or county in Scotland to act for any of the purposes of that Act for which such an inspector could act").
The noble Earl said: This Amendment should be taken together with the next but one, No. 77 AAA. Clause 47 safeguards the position of those unqualified officers who were appointed for limited purposes under the 1889 Weights and Measures Act, or under the provisions of the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926, for limited duties in connection with the sale of coal and of food respectively. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that in Scotland certain coal officers have in the past been appointed for similar purposes under the provision of local Acts. These coal provisions of the 1889 Act were not applied to Scotland until 1936, and they were not applied when any county or burgh already had local powers and wished to continue to work under them. Therefore, some coal officers are appointed under local Acts, and we want to make sure that their position is safeguarded, which is done by this Amendment and the next one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 16, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment is another Amendment concerned with coal officers and sale of food officers who are now employed by some local

645
authorities. They are not qualified inspectors, but under the 1889 Act and the 1926 Act they can be used to test and inspect certain goods. The subsection enables them to continue to act in respect of corresponding functions under the Bill where sanctioned by the local weights and measures authority. But under this subsection as drafted, these men have all the rights and powers of an inspector of weights and measures including the power under subsection (3) of Clause 49 to apply to a justice of the peace for a special warrant to enter premises, if necessary by force. That would be an extension of the powers of these officers, and the Government consider that such an extension is unnecessary for the exercise of their limited functions. The effect of the Amendment accordingly is to remove this power. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 21, after first ("Act") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 28, at end insert ("but no person shall he appointed as mentioned in paragraph (c) of this subsection after the commencement of section forty-two of this Act.") —(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48 [General administrative regulations]:
6.0 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved to gait Clause 48. The noble Lord said: This is a weird and wonderful clause, I should say unprecedented in legislation dealing with local authorities. Here it is said that a Government Department shall make regulations with regard to the manner of the performance by local authorities of their functions under this Bill—that the Board of Trade shall be able to make regulations and, presumably, judge whether the requirements specified in the regulations are complied with. I am advised that no such sweeping power over the exercise of local authorities' functions is to be found in any other legislation.
If the Board of Trade wish to be satisfied that in some particular respects local weights and measures authorities are carrying out their duties, then the proper procedure is for the matters to be prescribed and for the powers to be made by order or otherwise, as the case may be. But to ask local authorities to accept this general clause as to the manner in which they carry out their duties is almost an affront to self-respecting local authorities, and I hope that a clause of this kind will not be persisted in. I should like to remind your Lordships that this service is not a grant-aided service, and even in respect of grant-aided services—which for the most part, unhappily, no longer exist as grant-aided—no Ministry ask for powers of this order to determine and judge as to the manner in which local authorities are carrying out their prescribed statutory duties. I earnestly hope that the noble Earl will, if I may say so, with proper obeisance, withdraw the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 48.—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This clause empowers the Board of Trade to
"make regulations with respect to the manner of the performance by local weights and measures authorities and inspectors of their functions "
under the Bill. It is clear from what the noble Lord has said that his Amendment to leave out the clause has been put down on the ground that this power would give the Board of Trade the right to interfere in the internal administrative arrangements of the local authorities. But the object of the clause is to enable the Board of Trade to give guidance to local authorities on the technical and practical aspects of enforcement work.
For example, it will be necessary to prescribe minimum requirements in respect of the number and frequency of visits of inspection by inspectors. Then regulations as to the record books, certificates, and so on, which inspectors should keep will need to be laid down. If this is not done the Board's task of collating information from all over the country for use in their Reports would he rendered impossible. Further, instruction will be necessary in regard to the procedure to be adopted by inspectors in respect of the liquids withdrawn from

647
traders' tanks in the testing of liquid-measuring instruments, and we feel that these regulations are an important way in which the necessary uniformity will be secured in the actual administration of the law to match the uniformity aimed at in the legislation itself.
I would remind your Lordships that one of the main purposes of this Bill is to replace the vast quantity of rather confused and conflicting practice all over the country by a greater measure of uniformity. I think that is generally agreed in principle. That has been recommended by the Hodgson Committee, and I should have thought that this was one of the things for which the Government have so often been blamed for delaying for eight or nine years. This particular power ought not to be looked on as an affront to self-respecting local authorities. I honestly do not think it can reasonably be regarded in that light at all. Moreover, it is not a new power. A great many of the regulations to be made under this clause will simply repeat those which have been made under the 1904 Act and which could not be made under the powers accorded to the Board by Clauses 14 and 22 alone. It is no more intended now than it has been in the past to use these powers or regulations to interfere in the purely internal affairs of the local authority.
LORD BURDEN: Will the regulations be laid before the House and require a Resolution?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I should have to look up the distinction which is made later between Affirmative and Negative Resolutions. At the moment I do not know whether the regulations require approval of the House or not. I am now informed that it is a Negative and not an Affirmative Resolution in this case. But there are other instruments provided for in this Bill which will require an Affirmative Resolution. Whichever they are, they are of the same character as those already made under the 1904 Act.
LORD LATHAM: Having regard to that, I think it should be stated in the clause that the regulations will be as prescribed: how they can be made and how they can be altered. After all, the noble Earl said that the principal purpose of the clause was to give guidance
648
and instruction. If that is so, I submit that there are other English words which could be used to state that. This clause as drawn says, may make regulations with respect to the "manner"—that is the important word—in which the authorities carry out their duties. If the Board of Trade take the view that local authorities cannot be trusted to carry out the duties which will be cast upon them, let the Government prescribe the directions in which they think regulations are necessary, and let the regulations be discussed between the local authority associations and the Board of Trade. But this proposal that the Board should make regulations, of a character not yet indicated, with respect to the manner in which local authorities carry out their functions, is wholly unimaginable. If they want guidance, say they are to have guidance; make a list of the respects in which regulations will be made. I hope that the noble Earl will see the justice of my submissions. The local authorities think that this clause is something about which one could, quite properly, use language which would be improper in your Lordships' House.
LORD FARINGDON: I wonder whether the offence does not arise from the word "manner", and whether it could not be omitted.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not think that the word "manner" could be omitted without being replaced by something with respect to the performance. I honestly do not feel that there is any reason for local authorities to be affronted by this provision, and I cannot help feeling that they are being unduly sensitive about it. I have tried to explain to your Lordships that the purpose of this clause is not to interfere with their internal affairs but to help the local authorities to achieve the greater degree of uniformity which is desired. If it is strongly felt that the language of the clause causes offence I will certainly see whether it can be put in different language; but I am a little surprised to find that anybody should have taken this word so hardly. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, does not mean to imply that we are, so to speak, rebuking them in a clumsy and unstylish manner. That had not occurred to me. But I will certainly consider whether any language less

649
likely to offend the sensitive feelings of anybody can be found.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am sure we are all most grateful for that assurance from the noble Earl. But may I put it to him that the Committee should not give such wide powers in principle as are laid down in this clause. I think the Committee would be much happier if the powers required were more carefully stipulated so that we understand what we are giving the Board of Trade.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think the power to make regulations must be sufficient for their purpose, and of course we would always consult the local authorities, except on very small changes in methods of keeping records or something of that kind, for which consultation would be a waste of everybody's time. Apart from that, we would always consult the local authority. I think we must have power to make regulations which are sufficient to achieve the agreed purposes of this Bill. But I will consider whether that cart be done in a way which will not cause so much feeling.
LORD LATHAM: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [General powers of inspection and entry]:
6.13 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection (1) (c), to delete "not being premises used only as a private dwelling-house." The noble Lord said: Subsection (1) of this clause confers on inspectors of weights and measures certain powers of inspection and entry on premises. Paragraph (c) will authorize an inspector to enter any premises at which he has reasonable cause to believe there is any weighing or measuring equipment which is, or which he has reasonable cause to believe to be, used for trade or in the possession of any person for such use, or any goods which are or which he has reasonable cause to believe to be, goods dealt with by the Bill or by any statutory instrument made under the provision of the Bill. As it stands, however, paragraph (c) would exclude entry into premises used only as a private dwelling-house.
650
The whole point centers on the word "only". I submit that the restriction against entry into private dwelling-houses would unduly fetter inspectors of weights and measures in the performance of their functions. I am sure it is known to your Lordships that many street traders habitually keep all their equipment at home. They do not conduct any of their trade from their home.
I do not know how the clause will be construed, but it is possible that these premises would seem properly to fall within the definition of premises used only as a private dwelling-house. I am sure that while we do not want to do any injustice to street hawkers and similar people, the interests of the public and of consumers are such that street hawkers and similar people who keep their goods and weighing equipment and so on in a private dwelling-house should be liable to come under the inspection of weights and measures inspectors, and that those people should not be in a position of advantage which would he unfair to local traders whose premises are open to inspection because they are shops and so on. I beg to move
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 7, leave out from ("aforesaid") to the end of line 8.—(Lord Burden.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: The noble Lord has described the powers under this clause. He thinks that he has found a loophole in them. In point of fact, what he suggests in his Amendment would remove the only restriction on the general powers of entry—namely, as he has said, entry into a private dwelling-house which is used only for that purpose. But we feel that this would not only be a departure from existing law, under which an inspector has power to enter premises only where he has reasonable cause to believe that there is any equipment or goods which he is authorized to inspect, but would also be an unwarranted infringement of the rights of the citizen. If an inspector has reasonable cause to believe that what appears to be only a private dwelling-house in fact contains equipment or goods liable to inspection under the Bill, it is most probable that the house would not be being used solely as a private dwelling-house, in which event the restriction on entry would not apply. This would cover the house of a hawker such as the noble Lord has in

651
mind; it would cover his lodging or residence if he stored his wares or his weighing equipment in it.
If, on the other hand, the inspector has no cause to believe that a private house contains equipment or goods which he is authorized to inspect, then he should certainly not have the power of entry. I feel perfectly certain that the noble Lord would absolutely agree upon that. I think that is the definition that the noble Lord wanted—the definition of "only". I hope I have been able to satisfy him on that point.
LORD BURDEN: If the noble Lord can assure me that the word "only" will give the right to the inspector if he has reason to believe that goods or weighing equipment are stored in a house used otherwise as a private dwelling-house, then I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD FARINGDON: With great respect, I do not read this subsection as having the same meaning as the noble Lord has suggested it has. This concerns a right to enter premises on which he has reasonable cause to believe that there is any such equipment or goods on the basis of the premises not being used only as a private house. But he cannot go into the private house.
LORD BURDEN: It is the word "only" that I am concerned with.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The definition is that if he is storing his weighing machines or his wares inside, the inspector is entitled to enter because it is not, within the definition, being used only as a dwelling-house. In case the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, is still worried about this, I can add that if any difficulty arises in connection with the inspection of goods or equipment in what appears to be a dwelling-house, but is suspected of being used for trade, the inspector may apply to a justice of the peace for a special warrant of entry, valid for one month, under subsection (3) of the clause. He will of course have to convince the justice by a sworn statement in writing that there is a sufficient reason for securing entry: but that, after all, is a most salutary restriction on an inspector's power, covering any eventuality.
LORD BURDEN: May I suggest to the noble Lord that the only word that is causing difficulty is "only"; and if the word "solely" was substituted for that, then I believe we should know where we were.
LORD SILKIN: Is the noble Lord saying that a dwelling-house which is purely a private dwelling-house ceases to be a private dwelling-house merely because someone takes his scales home at night? I should have thought that that was rather tenuous. While I should not like to be dogmatic about it myself, I can see the noble Lord opening the door to a tremendous amount of litigation on the subject; and I should have thought it would be wiser to have another look at this clause to make quite clear what the Government's intentions are. If what is meant is that because a person is living in a particular place the inspector must not come in, that is all right. But the noble Lord himself has defeated that by saying that the moment a man takes his scales home the place ceases to be a dwelling-house. I think a little clear thinking is needed.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I do not think I have quite said that. The noble Lord is a lawyer and I am not; but if a man takes his scales home with him on one occasion it would be stretching a point to say the place has ceased to be his residence and become his place of business. If, however, the inspector has reason to believe that a man keeps his scales or wares in the house as a habit, then the inspector has a right of entry.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Lord speaks of his wares, and I would agree that if a man took home his scales and his wares there could be little doubt that the place had ceased to be purely a dwelling-house. But take the case of a man who is a street vendor and merely takes his scales home at night. I should not like to be dogmatic and say that that fact means that the place ceases to be a dwelling house.
LORD FARINGDON: I do not think the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, has interpreted this correctly. The inspector has a right of entry to:
"any premises at which he has reasonable cause to believe there to be …equipment or goods …not being premises used only as a private dwelling-house."

653
In other words, although he has reasonable cause to believe that a private dwelling-house is being used in this way, he cannot enter Lit because it is a private dwelling-house.
LORD BURDEN: May I cut the discussion short by saying that if the noble Lord will look at this matter again between now and the Report stage we shall know where we are? That is preferable to trying to pass it backwards and forwards. On that understanding, I withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.24 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to leave out subsection (7). The noble Lord said: My original intention in putting down this Amendment was to find out from the Government why they were taking away from inspectors the powers to stop a vehicle which they have had under Section 29 of the Weights and Measures Act. But the more I have read this Bill, the more I have come to believe that if subsection (7) is kept in it will weaken the Bill. I would refer the noble Lord to Part IV, Clause 22, subsection (2), paragraphs (g) and (h). Under paragraph (g) when goods are:
"offered for sale, or … in the course of delivery 10 the buyer,"
documents are needed. Under paragraph (h), when goods are:
"carried in a road vehicle along a highway"
they must be:
"accompanied by a document."
It is quite clear that an offence will be committed if the person does not have documents when carrying goods on the highway and in course of delivery.
Then on page 24, in Clause 25, subsection (3) (b) there is a provision relating to:
" any goods … at or in the course of their delivery to a buyer,"
from which one anticipates that various requirements are needed in this Bill to cover goods in transit on a vehicle. Yet in subsection (7) the Government seek to take away from the inspector the power to stop a vehicle. I would submit that if an inspector has not the power to stop a vehicle on the highway he will not be able to make a check to see that the indi-
654
visual concerned is carrying out the provisions previously required in this Bill.
There is one other point I would raise with the noble Lord. It is perfectly true that in this Bill the question of taximeters is not involved. Such meters are not something which, under the Bill, an inspector of weights and measures is required to check. In London that power is given to the police, but I understand that there are certain local authorities who use inspectors for this task, and if this subsection is included in the Bill it means that those local authorities will be unable to expect inspectors to carry out the duties they have been given. I would ask the noble Lord, therefore, first of all to tell us why the Government are taking away powers which inspectors of weights and measures have had for a great many years; and secondly whether he would not agree that if the Bill proceeds with this clause as it stands it will weaken the position with regard to the two other points I have raised. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 6, leave out subsection (7):—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: As much as anything else, this is a question of method and what one regards as practicable. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has made clear, the Bill confers on inspectors no powers whatever to stop vehicles on the highway. At present, apart from local Acts, the only vehicles that an inspector is authorized to stop are road vehicles carrying coal. I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware of that. In fact, such vehicles are more often inspected when they are already stopped; and under the Bill even the right to stop coal lorries is being brought to an end. The Bill does not hinder the inspection of goods on any vehicles already stopped on the highway; and if the driver of a stopped vehicle should drive away after being informed of the inspector's identity and requirements, the provisions of Clause 50 with regard to obstruction and noncompliance with an inspector's request would apply.
In general, the Government do not believe that power to stop vehicles on a highway is necessary to the efficient discharge of an inspector's duties. Existing powers to stop vehicles date from the days of the horse and cart; and nothing will persuade me that the noble

655
Lord belongs in spirit to those days. In future, absence of any such power may call for the exercise of more ingenuity and cause some little trouble to inspectors, but we think this is a small price to pay for freedom from another interference in the ordinary activities of traders and possibly of private individuals using their vehicles for private purposes. Existing powers have, in any case, not extended to sand and ballast, which is the outstanding case in which such powers might have proved most useful in practice. The point with regard to taxis is new to me and I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord an answer on that; but I hope he does not feel that any new imposition or frustration is being placed upon inspectors the effect of which will be to make their work appreciably more difficult.
LORD SHEPHERD: I do not want to add to the troubles of the inspector —he will have quite sufficient under this Bill—and I certainly do not want to affect the rights and liberties of the individual. But you are requiring that when goods are moved they shall carry documents (the carrying of documents is important), and I should have thought that inspectors should have the right to stop a vehicle if they suspect that something is going on that should not be. It is not a question of an inspector having to track down a vehicle. I think the inspector should have the power as he has, I admit, on the question of coal. If you have these requirements in the earlier part of the Bill, I think we should give the power to the inspector so that he is able to carry out his duties
LORD ST. OSWALD: I would just emphasize one point which I made before. The most stringent provisions existing to-day in the matter of documentation of goods which can be carried alone the highway are related to sand and ballast, but even in those regulations no provision exists for stopping wagons on the highway. I quite appreciate the noble Lord's wish to assist inspectors. But I have referred, perhaps rather generally, to the need for increased ingenuity; and as the noble Lord is one of the most ingenious people I know myself, I am sure he would not put that past an intelligent inspector.
LORD SHEPHERD: I do not quite know how to take the back-handed compliment, but I will look at this matter again. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Obstruction of inspectors]:
6.33 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved in subsection (1) (c) to leave out "performance by the inspector of his duties under" and insert instead "enforcement of". The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to strengthen paragraph (c) of Clause 50, which deals with the obstruction of inspectors. I understand that legal opinion has been expressed that the words "performance by the inspector of his duties" will prevent the inspector from applying for assistance or information which he might reasonably require for the purpose of general inquiries and investigations. The opinion has been expressed that the word "duties" would be limited to statutory duties, whereas there might be ancillary activities necessary for the purpose of his statutory duties which would not fall within the provisions of this clause dealing with obstruction. It is a little complicated, but the local authorities would be glad to have the matter cleared up in the light of the opinion which has been expressed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 17, leave out from second ("the") to ("this") in line 18 and insert ("enforcement of").—(Lord Latham.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: I see the noble Lord's purpose and the basis of his anxiety in this matter. There is a certain difficulty in wording, I agree, but, in fact, the word "enforcement" is nowhere defined in this Bill and it is difficult to see what place it could take in this particular clause. In other actions taken by the inspectors under the general excuse of obstruction the position is clear. I cannot advise the Committee Ito accept this Amendment, because it would appear in intention to be widening and making more vague the field in which the public might be held to be obstructing inspectors. That is the difficulty which I feel sure the

657
noble Lord will appreciate. A trader could be expected to know what were the duties of the inspector, but he could hardly be expected to know, or required to know, what might be entailed in the enforcement of the Bill as a whole. Inspectors cannot legitimately need sanctions in support of any steps they may take under the Bill, other than those which relate to the performance of their duties. The subsection as drafted gives them that sanction. As I say, the difficulty of wording is there, but I do not think that the noble Lord's wording here would make the position any easier for the inspector and I think it would certainly make the position very difficult indeed for the trader.
LORD LATHAM: I am not wedded to these words; nor am I wedded to the opinion that has been expressed by legal advisers. But if there is this risk and dubiety about the language of the clause as drafted, or the language of my Amendmen as submitted, I shall be quite content to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that the matter will be looked into to see whether words can be used which do not unduly constrict the area of obstruction or the type of obstruction.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, I should add that we are quite satisfied about the words used. I do not mean that because of that I will not look at the noble Lord's suggestion, but we are quite satisfied that the words as they stand do the job they are intended to do.
LORD LATHAM: It is a dangerous situation when a Department is quite satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Prosecution of Offences]:
6.38 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or the chief officer of police for a police area". The noble Lord said: Subsection (1) empowers the chief officer of police, in addition to the local weights and measures authority, to institute proceedings. This is a matter which I recall I mentioned on the Second
658
Reading of the Bill. The enforcement of the Act is entirely vested in the local weights and measures authority, and it is thought that the power to institute proceedings should be limited to that authority and persons acting in behalf of that authority. It is difficult to see what justification there can be for giving these powers to a chief officer of police, who has no other powers under the Bill, and may not be in any sense aware of the provisions of the Statute or of the arrangements for its operation and the arrangements made for the inspection and the like. He has no qualification, yet he is empowered to take action in connection with legislation or a Statute which will inevitably be technical and complicated.
I should be glad to hear from the noble Earl what is the reason for giving this power to the police. The police are certainly not looking round for extra duties, especially in London, and I believe that it is equally the case in the provinces. Suddenly, as it were, to permit the police to come in at one particular point, when they have had no previous association with the technicalities of this service, seems to me to be a proposal which will hinder rather than advance the effective enforcement of the provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 46, leave out ("or the chief officer of police for a police area ").—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: As the noble Lord says, the local weights and measures authorities are the authorities responsible for enforcing the Act, but the police have had power to institute proceedings under weights and measures legislation ever since 1926. They have that power already, and I do not think it has ever led to any difficulties. The reasons why it seems desirable for them to possess it, although they may not be the chief agents in using it, are that the power of a chief officer of police to institute proceedings might be useful in cases where a number of offences, not all of them weights and measures offences, have been committed—for example, by a street trader. Or, again, what appears at first sight to be a straightforward weights and measures offence may sometimes, on investigation.

659
reveal facts which indicate the existence of a much more serious offence, such as larceny or conspiracy to defraud, which the police are the proper authorities to handle.
Cases of this kind have occurred under existing legislation, and when they do the inspector hands over to the police the facts which he has unearthed, and eventually appears in court as a witness for the prosecution. I am referring to cases of conspiracy to defraud, which might be begun by discovering some weights and measures offence. One other reason for the police having power to prosecute is that, in the event of a complaint by a member of the public of misconduct or neglect on the part of an inspector, the police would be the right authorities, and possibly the only authorities, who would be capable of making an independent investigation leading to the institution of proceedings.
LORD LATHAM: I confess that I am not only mystified but very disturbed at the proposal to mix up other offences, possibly serious crimes, with the enforcement of the provisions of this Bill when it becomes an Act. I should have thought that there was every reasonable objection to that. Apparently the processes of the general criminal law are to be available, in addition to the provisions of this Act, for the enforcement of this Act. I should have thought that that was a little unusual. While it may well be that this provision has not occasioned any difficulties since 1926, the noble Earl did not say that it had been an advantage, or that the enforcement of the existing legislation would have been less effective but for this provision. I should have thought that it was eminently desirable, in all the circumstances, to keep the two things quite separate. If the weights and measures authority are the authority to carry out the provisions of this legislation, let them be so, and do not bring in the police.
LORD SILKIN: I am a little puzzled by the examples which the noble Earl gave, because the examples of larceny, and so on, which he quoted are, of course, cases where obviously the chief of police in the area would come in, but this subsection in this clause provides that "proceedings for any offence
660
under this Act" shall be commenced by the chief officer of police. If it were a case of larceny, then, of course, it would not be under this Act; and similarly with the other example the noble Earl gave. I find it difficult to conceive of a case under this Act where it would be necessary to bring in the chief of police.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Offences under this Act might be connected with a more serious offence, such as a conspiracy to defraud, in which case the chief of police would obviously be the right person to handle it. I do not think that the noble Lord would suggest that there should be two separate prosecutions in two separate courts at two separate times, one for conspiracy to defraud and the other for some offence under this Act. I mentioned that the police had been permitted to institute prosecutions since 1926 simply to show that it is not a new power. It has existed since then; and when I said that it had not occasioned any difficulties, I did not mean, of course, that it has not sometimes been a good thing. It has sometimes been a good thing. Cases of the kind I have mentioned have occurred, and when they have occurred it has been the practice of the inspector up to now to hand over to the police the facts which he has discovered. The prosecution is then brought at the instance of the police, and the inspector may sometimes appear as a witness in the case.
LORD LATHAM: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LATHAM: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we took the remaining Amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Silkin and myself—Nos. 77 BE, 77 BF, 77 BG and 77 BH—together. In the past, difficulties have frequently arisen in regard to the venial jurisdiction in relation to offences committed within the jurisdiction of one magistrates' court and detected in the jurisdiction of another. It is thought that the extended provisions of the present Bill in relation to transported goods may also produce many more difficulties of this character in the future unless suitable provision is included in the Bill.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This is Amendment No. 77 BG, is it?—at page 44, line 16?
LORD LATHAM: Yes.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD AILWYN): 77 BE was the one I called on, at the bottom of the page.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It concerned the time to elapse between the alleged offence and prosecution.
LORD LATHAM: Amendment No. 77 BE is, of course, the insertion after the word "committed", of the words "or from the date on which the offence is discovered by the prosecutor." It seems to me to be a reasonable proposal to extend the time in this way. It can be to the advantage of the authority, and I do not think it does any injustice to the person who is regarded as having offended against the provisions of the law. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 5, after ("committed") insert or from the date on which the offence is discovered by the prosecutor.").—(Lord Latham.)
6.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The Hodgson Committee recommended two things with regard to this matter. They recommended that the period during which a prosecution could be instituted should be lengthened, and they suggested that the period might run, as it would under the noble Lord's Amendment, from the time of the discovery of the offence and not from the time of the commission of the offence. I ought to explain briefly to your Lordships why we have accepted the first of these two recommendations of the Committee without accepting the second. We are accepting the first because we think it is reasonable that the time should be lengthened. At the present time it is 28 days; under this Bill it is being extended to three months.
The reason why the Government do not feel able to accept the other proposal —namely, that the period should run from the time of the discovery of the offence—is a legal one, which perhaps would be better explained by a legal authority. But I think it is one which a layman could well understand, and I
662
will do my best to put it shortly. Our reasons are that we ought not to require a defendant who wishes to show that the action against him is out of time to bring evidence as to the date of discovery by the prosecutor, which could in many cases be quite unknown to him—that is, to the defendant. Particularly would that be the case in Scotland, where prosecutions are not instituted by local authorities but by procurators fiscal, and a considerable time could elapse between the date on which the inspector found facts which he thought might constitute an offence and the date on which a frill report was made by the inspector of the local authority to the procurator fiscal. Of course, the same would apply in England and Wales if the inspector referred the case to the police. But I will not press that aspect, since the noble Lord has already suggested that the police should not come into it.
May I also point out to your Lordships that the period mentioned in this clause during which proceedings can be instituted does not apply to proceedings under subsection (6) of Clause 26 for a false warranty; that is, a false statement as to the amount of goods made by the wholesale supplier or packer to the retailer—
LORD LATHAM: False representation.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes—and it does not apply to proceedings under subsection (4) of Clause 28, where they are instituted against a third party whom the prosecution considers to be the real offender. That is, of course, a case similar in principle. If the proceedings ought to be instituted against the third party, the Bill already recognizes that, because of the prolonged investigations which may be needed after the original detection of the offence, there should be no special time limit. In these cases the provisions of Section 104 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, which permit up to six months for the institution of proceedings, compared with three months in this Bill, will apply.
LORD LATHAM: In the light of the explanation given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LATHAM: This is the Amendment I was referring to, dealing with the

663
overlapping, as it were, of jurisdiction. As I was saying, it is thought that the difficulty could be overcome by giving the prosecutor the option to institute proceedings, either in the jurisdiction where the offence was committed, or, alternatively, in that where the offence was detected. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 16, at end insert—
("() Where an offence under the Act is committed in the area of one local weights and measures authority but is discovered or continued within the area of another local weights and measures authority, proceedings may, at the option of the prosecutor, be taken either before a court having jurisdiction in the area within which the offence was committed or before a court having jurisdiction in the area within which lithe offence was continued or discovered.")—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: As this Amendment has again some legal aspects to it, I am relieved to see my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is here, but I hope to be able to get on without him. The Amendment would, in our view, have some consequences which are not desirable. For instance, if an inspector in Yorkshire discovered that the person in charge of a vehicle carrying goods consigned from London to a place in Durham had no delivery note for handing to the consignee, when he ought, according to this Bill, to be carrying such a note in the course and on delivery of the goods, this Amendment would enable that inspector to prosecute before the court in Yorkshire, not only the carrier for not having the delivery note but also the London consignor for not giving a delivery note to the carrier when the goods were dispatched.
This would no doubt be a great convenience to the Yorkshire inspector, but it would be a considerable inconvenience to the witnesses involved in these joint proceedings, both for the prosecution and for the defense, who would have to travel from Durham and London in order to attend proceedings. Among these witnesses would be a London inspector of weights and measures whose assistance would be needed to investigate the London aspect of the proceedings, because, as your Lordships will appreciate, under this Bill the Yorkshire inspector can exercise investigation functions only in his own
664
area. Moreover, the defendant consignor would be put to considerable expense in getting himself and his witnesses from London to Yorkshire; and even if he were acquitted, it is within the discretion of the Yorkshire court not to allow him any of the costs or expenses involved.
I hope your Lordships will share our view that any provision in this Bill which could produce such a result would be unfair. After all, until a defendant is convicted he is not an offender, and no one, in our view, should be put to unnecessary inconvenience and expense in answering a charge under the Bill save for the most exceptional reasons. I do not think there is anything, either in the purpose, the scope or the character of this Bill, or in any of the requirements it imposes, which would justify such a departure from the general rules relating to the territorial jurisdiction of the courts. And it would be undesirable, in my submission, except on very unusual grounds, to make a provision special to this Bill which constituted a departure from such general rules.
LORD LATHAM: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his explanation. I think, on the whole, it is a satisfactory answer to my proposal, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.59 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: This Amendment is put down for the purpose of bringing in the appropriate and related section or sections of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955. In some cases of prosecution under the Act, it is expected that it may be necessary to prove an analysis, and therefore suitable provision under the section relating to analysis should be included in the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 16, at end insert—
("() In any proceedings under this Act, the production by one of the parties of a document purporting to he a certificate of a public analyst in the form prescribed under subsection (5) of section ninety-two of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955 or of a document supplied to him by the other party as being a copy of such a certificate shall be sufficient evidence of the facts stated therein, unless, in the first-mentioned case, the other party requires that the analyst shall be called as a witness.").—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Possibly the reason why this Amendment has been put clown is to pave the way for certain other Amendments to the Schedule which would involve some analysis of various kinds of goods. I am sure your Lordships would prefer not to discuss these Amendments in advance until we get to them; but, meanwhile, there is not any provision in this Bill for any kind of analysis. The Bill is concerned purely with quantity—with weights and measures—and so long as there is no provision involving any analysis of goods, there is no reason why the evidence of an analyst should be better than the evidence of any other person. It is, in fact, not relevant to the purpose of the Bill.
LORD LATHAM: I confess that I am not altogether clear about the matter, but perhaps the noble Earl should have the benefit of the doubt, if I may say so with respect, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Penalties]:
7.0 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: This clause lays down penalties for specific offences, but there seems to be a curious omission: that is, the case of a continuing offence. May I give the noble Earl an example, though it may be a bad one? Suppose a person has been convicted of having unfair scales and goes on using those scales. We feel that such a person ought to be liable to penalties for every day in which he goes on using the scales in respect of which he has been convicted. It is a common thing to have a penalty for continuing offences. We find it in most legislation of this kind, and we think it is right that a penalty for continuing offences should be laid down in the Bill We have suggested £5 a day. The noble Earl may think that that is too much or too little, but we are prepared to discuss it. We certainly think that something of this kind should be in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 30, at end insert ("and if the offence in respect of which he was convicted is continued after the conviction he shall be guilty of a further offence and shall be liable in respect thereof to a fine not exceeding five
666
pounds for each day the offence is so continued").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: This Amendment would have the effect of introducing into weights and measures law the principle of special penalties for continuing offences. The noble Lord no doubt has in mind the provisions of Section 106 of the Food and Drugs Act 1955, which prescribes a penalty of £5 for each day during which the offence continues after conviction. The Government feel that, whilst such provisions may be appropriate to legislation which is concerned to a great extent with matters of hygiene, they are inappropriate in a Bill dealing with weights and measures. Special penalties for continuing offences need very special scrutiny, and the offences covered in the subsection certainly do not, in the Government's view, merit this treatment. Faked or unjust scales, which the noble Lord has called into example, would be liable to forfeiture, which would enable the court to prevent a continuing offence in the form of their use.
LORD SILKIN: They may be liable to be, but may not in fact be, forfeited. The inspector may take the view that the penalty is good enough. If a trader goes on using such scales, I should have thought that a penalty of this nature would be appropriate. I should like to look at these offences again in the light of what the noble Lord has said and see whether, in addition to the example I have given, there are others where it would be appropriate to have a penalty for continuing offences. This is not a mere formality. I propose to put the Amendment down on Report stage unless the noble Lord, having considered the matter, feels that something of this kind is necessary. Then I should be prepared to give further examples of cases where I think this penalty is appropriate.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I should like to say a word on the question of the liability as opposed to the fact of forfeiture. I cannot see why an inspector would be less likely than the noble Lord himself to consider that forfeiture was the proper course to take.
LORD SILKIN: I should like to reconsider this matter, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LATHAM: This Amendment is intended to cover the offences of obstruction mentioned in Clause 50, where such offences are committed with the intention of preventing the discovery of some other offence for which the penalty might be higher than the penalty for obstruction. It is considered that in such circumstances the maximum penalty for obstruction should not be £20, as provided in this clause, but should be the maximum permitted by the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 30, at end insert—
"Provided that, in the case of an offence under subsection (1) of section fifty of this Act, if the Court is satisfied that the person committed that offence with intent to prevent the discovery of some other offence under the Act, or if he has within the twelve months last preceding been convicted of an offence under subsection (1) of section fifty of this Act, he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence to which this proviso applies, a fine of two hundred and fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or both."—(Lord Latham.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: Our view of this Amendment is that it would produce a result which would be quite inconsistent with the basis on which criminal justice is administered in this country. Under Clause 53, among the offences which attracts a lower maximum penalty of £20 are those which arise under subsection (1) of Clause 50 and relate to what can be described as impeding the inspector in the proper fulfillment of his duties under this Bill. An offence under subsection (2) of Clause 50 which involves fraud and deception will, of course, be subject to the higher penalties prescribed in subsection (2) of Clause 53.
What this Amendment seeks to do is to attach the higher penalties to any offence of impeding an inspector if the court is satisfied that the person committed the offence with intent to prevent the discovery of some other offence under the Bill or if, within the preceding twelve months, he has been convicted of the offence of impeding an inspector under subsection (1) of Clause 50. The criminal law of this country is administered on the broad principle of strict proof and not mere suspicion, belief or even probability; but it is clear that this Amendment means that the court would be entitled to have regard to the fact that the defendant was probably covering up
668
some other conduct which would be an offence under the Bill. It seems quite wrong, in the view of the Government, that any court should be entitled to have regard to something which they suspect has occurred or which may probably have occurred, but of which they have not had strict proof. The court ought only to be guided by other offences of which they have had strict proof in accordance with the proper rules of evidence; and if the inspector is able to establish another offence in accordance with that principle, then that other offence ought to be charged against the defendant. If he cannot so establish it, it ought not to be taken into consideration.
This Amendment, therefore, is unnecessary by any test, if one accepts the principle on which, in the view of the Government, this matter should be determined. The Government recognize that a person may repeat the offence of obstruction from time to time, but it will be a very weak inspector who allows himself to be so obstructed and yet can find no way of tracking down the more serious offence which he suspects is being concealed behind the obstruction. And if he suspects that that offence constitutes some large scale fraud, he can always invoke the assistance of the police. Certainly the fact that extra trouble and difficulty arise for the inspector does not outweigh the very real inequity which. would be involved in raising the maximum penalty on the mere ground of suspicion or probability that another offence is being concealed. These are the reasons for which I cannot advise the Committee to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD LATHAM: I must say that I am by no means convinced that the Government are right in rejecting this Amendment. I do not think the Amendment suggests, and I certainly never suggested in the few remarks I made, that a person should be fined before he has been found guilty. I did not suggest anything that ran contrary to the corpus of British law. The offences will have been committed; if not, the court will ascertain whether they were, in fact, committed. Is that not so?
LORD ST. OSWALD: There may be some misunderstanding here. My understanding was, as I said, that the noble

669
Lord was referring to suspected offences. If that is not so, then we must look at it again. The whole of my reply, as the noble Lord realises, was based on that understanding. I do not think we can carry it much further to-night.
LORD LATHAM: It is a matter that might possibly be looked into, and I would only say this. The Amendment relates to offences committed "with intent to prevent the discovery". That would have to be proved. I do not suggest that the inspector could say to the court: I suspect that this man did so and so because of so and so. He would have to prove it; and once he has proved it, the offender would be guilty.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The inspector would also have to prove the major offence, of course.
LORD LATHAM: Yes. If the matter can be looked into, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 [Regulations and orders]:
7.13 p.m.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved to leave out subsection (2) and to insert:
"Before making any order or regulations under arty of the provisions of this Act the Board shall comply with the provisions contained in the Twelfth Schedule to this Act."
The noble Lord said: In speaking to this Amendment I am also arguing in favour of the insertion of a proposed new Twelfth Schedule—namely, Amendment No. 183—and I hope that it will be reached while I am still alive. Industry is not at all happy about the provisions of this clause, especially with regard to the provisions for consultation.
If your Lordships look at Clause 55 (2) you will see that it says:
"… the Board shall consult with and consider any representations with respect to the subject-matter of the order …"
It is not only the subject-matter in which industry is interested, but also the method of enforcing the order. In view of the exceptionally wide powers which it is proposed to confer on the Board of Trade to make orders and regulations, I think it is essential that opportunities should be given to persons concerned to
670
make their views known, and that they should be as wide as possible. The object of this Amendment is not only to provide for consultation—which is done in a limited way in the clause as drafted —but to provide for effective consultation. The special procedure set out in the proposed new Twelfth Schedule is modeled upon the requirements relating to the making of special regulations under the Factories Acts, which is understood to work extremely well. If this Amendment is carried, and also the provisions of the proposed Twelfth Schedule later, we shall then have a proper drill laid down to deal with objections. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert the said new words.—(Lord Jessel.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Subsection (1) of Clause 55 lays down the procedure to be adopted by the Board of Trade in the exercise of the powers given to them in the Bill to make orders or regulations. Subsection (2) requires the Board to consult interested parties before making certain orders, and subsection (3) indicates those orders which are to be approved by Affirmative Resolution of each House of Parliament. Subsection (4) provides for the variation and revocation of orders, and subsection (5) provides for statutory instruments containing regulations to be subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House.
As an alternative to this procedure my noble friend has proposed his new Twelfth Schedule, for which this Amendment clears the way, at the end of the Marshalled List. This proposed Twelfth Schedule would require the Board to publish a notice of any proposal to make orders or regulations in the London Gazette, and in the event of objection being made in writing, to proceed stage by stage up to the holding of a public inquiry. The Amendment seeks to apply public inquiry procedure to the process of making orders and regulations under the Bill, a procedure which, in our view, is unnecessarily cumbersome, tedious and expensive to both industry and public, having regard to the matters likely to be dealt with in the orders and regulations and to the safeguards already incorporated in the clause, which I began by listing to your Lordships.

671
The Amendment will involve a complex and expensive procedure for all orders affecting individual commodities. Such procedures may be appropriate in particular cases, particularly where the general policy objection is agreed, but there may be differences between two interests as to how it is best effected in a particular case. Here, however, there is a variety of conflicting policy interests and frequently a large number of conflicting interests, one of the most important of which, that of the consumer or the man in the street, can hardly be expected to be represented by one or more organizations briefing the counsel who are to appear before the tribunal.
I feel that this procedure would greatly impede flexibility. I think that if it were adopted the Bill would become not at all a consumer's charter in the weights and measures field, but rather a charter for opposition to all attempts to keep our legislation flexible to meet changing conditions, whether these arise in big industry, in small manufacturing firms, in the chain stores or among the small traders, or whether they arise from changes in the buying habits and needs of ordinary consumers. I hope your Lordships will allow me to submit that it would be contrary to the main purposes of this Bill.
LORD JESSEL: I thank my noble friend for his reply and I will carefully consider what he has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdrew the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
House resumed.

FUTURE BUSINESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce the arrangements which have been made through the usual channels for the future conduct of this Committee stage. The suggestion is that we should sit late on Monday, sit until dinner-time on Tuesday and, if necessary, sit on Wednesday morning after the Judicial Business, which should be concluded somewhere between 11.30 and a quarter to twelve.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL [H.L.]
Committee stage resumed.
LORD SILKIN: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Burden, I beg to move the next Amendment in his name, which is linked with the following three Amendments. The short purpose of these Amendments is that where it is sought to take away from an existing weights and measures authority the powers under Clause 35 (3) of this Bill, then they should have the right to make representations under Clause 55, which we are now considering. It seems to me eminently reasonable that a local authority such as, for instance, Winchester, which we discussed the other day, should have the right to put forward this argument if the Board of Trade decided to take away their functions. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 9, at end insert ("() subsection (3) of section thirty-five;").—(Lord Silkin.)
7.20 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The first effect of these three Amendments is to kill the timetable which has been set, as described by the noble Lord, so leaving the whole timing established by this Bill unsettled. The second effect would be that any authorities which lose the function will not do so automatically under the Bill, but only as a result of an order made by the Board of Trade—presumably a separate order for each case. If the council of a non-county borough with a population below 60,000 decides not to appeal to the Board to be allowed to continue to exercise the function, it will automatically lose the function on March 31, 1963.
The Amendment is designed to enable the process of reducing the number of smaller weights and measures authorities to be spread over a longer and, indeed, indeterminate period. From that, we assume that there is no doubt as to the ability of the Board of Trade to consider individual cases put up by non-county boroughs and urban districts with a population below 60,000 to consult the county councils concerned and to reach a decision by March 31, 1964. The reason is no doubt that the noble Lord thinks that there would be advantage in letting decisions be deferred, at any rate

673
until the first round of recommendations are received as a result of the work of the Local Government Commission and of the county reviews. The Government recognize the force of this, and a non-county borough with a population of considerably less than 60,000, who are already exercising the function, may not be enabled by the Board of Trade order under subsection (5) to retain it. Yet a few years later its population may be increased to 60,000 or more by an order made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, following a report of the Local Government Commission or a county review, and the authority, as a result, will have the right to regain the function at five-yearly intervals thereafter. Thus, a long-established authority could lose the function for a few years, only to regain it later as a result of a boundary change.
This is, however, a field in which perfect solutions acceptable to all the interests concerned are hardly practicable. The Hodgson Committee recommended, in effect that only counties and county boroughs should be weights and measures authorities, and they even advocated that the smaller among these authorities should combine for all weights and measures purposes. There is a great deal to be said for this course, in the interest of both economic and efficient administration. It is not a question of the smaller authorities being inefficient, but that, particularly as trade is conducted more and more on a national or regional basis, the enforcement by bigger units becomes more efficient. Traders and manufacturers operating over wide areas have fewer authorities to deal with, and the establishment of local offices by the local authorities ensure that the enforcement is not remote from the consumer. It is also to the interest of business and consumer alike that the standard of enforcement should be uniform over wide areas.
Nevertheless, as the noble Lord has seen, the Government have not accepted the 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 authorities entitled to the function in the past have exercised it. They have combined with other authorities or
674
ceded the function to the county. There are, however, some non-county boroughs which are attached to its exercise, and the Bill therefore enables any non-county borough or urban district with a population of 60,000 to be a weights and measures authority if it wishes. The Bill even goes 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 a weights and measures authority. So, in both these respects, the Bill constitutes a considerable watering-down of the Hodgson Committee's recommendations. The Government consider that this is a justified compromise between the arguments for the county and county borough only, on the one hand, and the need to keep a lively civic organization in the smaller units of local government.
LORD SILKIN: I cannot help thinking that, owing to the lateness of the hour and the long time the noble Lord has been sitting on the Bench, he has misconceived the point here and is reading the wrong brief. This is a very simple point. I am not arguing whether any particular weights and measures authorities should or should not remain. I am not arguing the case of the county boroughs or the non-county boroughs. All I am saying is that, before the President of the Board of Trade makes an order depriving a weights and measures authority of these powers, that authority should have the right to make representations in accordance with the particular section with which we are dealing. That seems to me so reasonable that I should have thought, subject to the drafting of the Amendment in the name of my noble friend—which I had not come prepared to deal with, but as he is not here I think his opinion ought to be put—the Government would at once accept it. Surely they will not deprive a local authority of its powers without giving it a right to make representations. That is all this series of Amendments really asks for. I am not saying that they should not deprive anybody. I hope that the noble Lord will examine this and see that no authority is deprived of its powers unless it has had the opportunity of making recommendations.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The series of Amendments which the noble Lord has

675
just moved on behalf of his noble friend are consequential on an Amendment which he withdrew on Tuesday at page 34. Therefore, since the noble Lord again moved these consequential Amendments, I was obliged, reluctantly, to repeat the same arguments which persuaded his noble friend to withdraw them yesterday.
LORD SILKIN: I do not think so. I do not think they are consequential. I think this is a new point, an entirely new thing—that if you deprive a local authority of its powers it should be able to make representations.
LORD ST. OSWALD: May I make a point? No formal requirement of consultation is needed in respect of local authorities who may lose the weights and measures function. They have the right of appeal to the Board of Trade if they wish to keep that function. It is in this form of consultation that the local authorities can lay before the Board all the arguments they wish to deploy in favour of their retaining the function. Does that answer the noble Lord's question?
LORD SILKIN: That comes much nearer to the point we are discussing. If the noble Lord is saying that they already have the right to make recommendations in some form, which I presume is acceptable—I will have another look at that—then, of course, there is no need to specify it still further. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clauses 56 to 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Interpretation]:
7.30 p.m.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved, in the definition of "pre-packed", after "proved" to insert:
"which may be done by a statement marked or printed on the container to the effect that the article is not for retail sale".
The noble Lord said: In various industries goods sold by the ton, or multiples of a ton, are made up, for the convenience of handling, into containers—for example, 1 cwt. bags or 5 gallon drums; but it is not intended that the individual
676
package or container should be sold by retail singly. The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that in such cases the manufacturer or trader may elect to treat such a consignment as a bulk sale provided that he gives due notice on the container that the package is not for sale retail singly. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 12, after ("proved") insert the said words.—(Lord Jessel.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: We have now reached the definition clause, and one of the definitions in that clause is of the, word "pre-packed", which is stated to mean
"made up in advance ready for retail sale in or on a container".
The Bill makes it an offence to have in possession for sale unmarked containers of many categories of pre-packed goods, and the definition goes on to provide that any article made up in a container which is found on any premises where such articles are made up or stored for sale shall be deemed to be pre-packed unless the contrary is proved. My noble friend's Amendment seeks to establish that, in order to prove the contrary, it shall be sufficient that the container is marked with a statement that the article is not for retail sale; in other words that the bare statement on the article shall be accepted as proof. As the Bill is drafted it places on the packer who claims that certain packs are not pre-packed, within the meaning of the Bill, the onus of proof that this is in fact the case. And, of course, a statement on the package that it was not for retail sale would be prima facie evidence of this fact. But to provide that prima facie evidence is the same thing as indisputable proof would, I think, tear a hole in the protection which this Bill is intended to afford to the consumer of pre-packed goods, and I am afraid that the Government could not see their way to accept an Amendment of that kind.
LORD STONHAM: Might I ask the noble Lord a question on this point? The definition of "pre-packed" is not entirely clear to me. In dealing with his noble friend's Amendment he has not clarified the position. Does it mean that "pre-packed" could possibly cover the containers only? From what he said I thought that would

677
be possible. But in, my view "pre-packed" can mean only that the outer covering or container has something inside it. Surely it would not be an offence for the manufacturers of all sorts of containers to have them stored empty in a warehouse waiting to be sent to the people who are going to put goods into them?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: An empty container could not possibly be pre-packed. The definition of "pre-packed" in Clause 59 is at page 48, lines 7 to 15. What the Bill does is to place on the person in whose possession the goods are the onus of proving that (they are not pre-packed. As has often been explained on earlier occasions, we have felt this was the only way in Which we could give adequate protection to the consumer. The onus on the possessor is to show that the goods are not prepacked within the meaning of the Act. All this Amendment does is to propose that a statement written on the container that it is not for retail sale shall be sufficient evidence that it is not for retail sale; and that is what we can not accept.
LORD STONHAM: If a container has nothing in it that presumably would be reasonable evidence that it was not pre-packed.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This sounds to me like a question out of Alice in Wonderland. I see no difficulty in agreeing to the fact that a container which contains nothing is not packed with anything.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should like to be quite clear. I am naturally very Interested in this sort of thing. The definition at page 48, lines 7 to 15, is, I think, fairly clear. It is concerned with the pre-packing of stuff ready for retail sale. But is it sufficient simply to put on the outside of a package which contains, say, two dozen (or whatever the quantity is) that it is for sale wholesale, to escape any inspection to discover whether the weight proposed to be sold to a retail customer by a retailer is the right weight? I am not quite clear what the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, is after. If he could explain a little more I might be in sympathy, but prima facie it seems to me that the Government are right here.
LORD JESSEL: I do not want anybody to get into trouble because one pack is underweight. It is the whole bulk total which is to be the prescribed weight.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The container which is only for wholesale sale is the one on which you want to put the special marking? Could you name a commodity pre-packed ready for the retailer to sell which would have reference to one pack? I do not follow it. If you are going to have a cardboard container which has two dozen pots or cans or packages already made up, surely if they are being sold to a retailer to sell again each one should be the correct weight, should it not?
LORD JESSEL: They are not being sold to a retailer.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: What are they doing pre-packed?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Perhaps I could help. Pre-packed goods are exempted if it is proved that they are not for retail sale. My noble friend's Amendment accepts the fact that they should be inspected if they are not for retail sale. The Amendment proposes that the fact that they are marked not for retail sale should he sufficient evidence that they are not for retail sale: and that is what the Government cannot accept.
LORD SILKIN: There is very little difference between the two noble Lords, if I may help to reconcile them. It is that in the one case the Amendment wants this statement to be conclusive evidence, whereas the Government are saying that that can be put forward as evidence if there is a prosecution but that it is not conclusive. Is not that the only difference?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Exactly.
LORD LATHAM: It is a question of where the onus of proof lies.
LORD JESSEL: I am a little disappointed, because I was led to believe that this Amendment was acceptable. But in view of what the noble Earl has said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
LORD JESSEL: Although one cannot expect interpretations for all the words and phrases used in this Bill, there appear to be a number of occasions where an interpretation would assist your Lordships and the general public in understanding this difficult and complex piece of legislation. A meaning of "retail sale" which will not be open to argument seems to be necessary, and it appears essential in the public interest that the words should be defined in the Bill itself and not left to be settled in the course of a series of court proceedings. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 17, at end insert ("'retail sale' means a sale by way of trade to a person buying otherwise than for the purpose of resale or otherwise than for use or consumption in any trade or business;").—(Lord Jessel.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The phrase "retail sale" is at present used in the Bill only in one place, namely in the definition of "pre-packed" which we have just been talking about, and in that context the words do not occur in isolation but are part of a longer phrase which runs "made up in advance ready for retail sale". The Bill as drafted does not define the term "retail sale", and my noble friend's Amendment proposes to insert a definition of it in the interpretation clause. Possibly the object of my noble friend in moving this Amendment may be the same which led him to move the preceding one, which seeks to vary the definition of what is pre-packed—that is to say, that a packer should be free of all inquiry by a local inspector whenever he is packing goods which he intends for sale for ultimate consumption in a trade or business.
The essential question underlying the definition of "pre-packed" and the present Amendment is the position of the factory packer. Certain goods are, when pre-packed, required by the Schedule to be marked with their quantity, or in a few cases to be made up in specified quantities, as soon as they are held in possession for sale. The packer who is making up those particular goods in containers wants to know at the packing stage whether they must conform to these requirements. The answer given by the definition of "pre-packed" is that it depends on whether the goods are being made up in advance
680
ready for retail sale. In ordinary language, the question is whether the packer is making up what would ordinarily be known as a retail pack. If, the definition of pre-packed says, in effect, it looks like a retail pack, then it shall be assumed to be so unless the contrary is proved. In most cases the facts will be self-evident, one way or the other. The only difficulty which appears to arise is that of the packer who, first, has a substantial business in selling to processors and builders, as well as in supplying the retail market; who, secondly, also wishes to use the same pack for both markets, and who, thirdly, wishes to avoid a marking or other requirement of the Schedules when selling to what might be called the non-retail side of his business.
In order to deal with the special and limited problem which can relate only to one or two of the pre-packed goods covered by the Schedule, the Amendment introduces at the packing stage the question of exactly how the goods are going to be used some weeks or months later. The average packer cannot know this. Nor can the inspector. Nor could a court. In fact, if this Amendment were accepted without the previous one, which my noble friend has not pressed, it would mean that the definition of pre-packed would become nonsensical, because goods would only be pre-packed if they were going to be consumed by the man in the street, but this would be assumed in all cases unless the contrary was proved. I am afraid that the Government must, therefore, resist this Amendment, like the last, because it would produce a general weakening of consumer protection over the whole field in order to solve the problem of one or two particular trades which can be properly considered only in the context of those particular cases as they arise in the Schedule.
LORD JESSEL: I am afraid I shall have to read that reply in order properly to understand it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN had given notice of his intention in subsection (1) to insert the following definition:
"'volume', in relation to wood fuel, may include the overall cubic measurement of a regularly piled stack of such fuel".
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD AILWYN): I understand that this Amendment is not moved.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I was rather hoping to get the feeling of the noble Earl upon the effect of this Amendment. I know the Amendment is not moved and therefore we cannot have it as an Amendment before the Committee. If it had been moved is it likely to have been accepted by the Government or by the Board of Trade? Because, it follows that it might have some effect upon businesses of different kinds concerned both with the farm and with retail distribution as well.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It does indeed, and if my noble friend had moved his Amendment I should have said that I was considering the whole question of fuel, which I think needs more examination in relation to this Bill—particularly wood fuel.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clauses 60 to 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Repeals]:
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved to add at the end of subsection (1)
"and, without prejudice to paragraph (b) of this subsection, in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of section eighty-seven of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955 (which relates to the authorities responsible for enforcing certain of the provisions of that Act) the reference to local authorities for the purposes of the Weights and Measures Acts, 1878 to 1936, shall be construed as a reference to local weights and measures authorities for the purposes of this Act."
The noble Earl said: We have got now to Part IV of the Bill, which provides for regulating certain transactions in goods and which will not come into operation until two years after the passing of the Bill. In the meantime, the marking of pre-packed commodities will be controlled by the marking regulations made under the Food and Drugs Act 1955, and that Act will be repealed when Part IV of this Bill comes into operation. Those marking regulations specify, and are required by the Act of 1955 to specify, that they are enforceable by the local authorities for the purposes of the Weights and Measures Acts, 1878 to 1936. When Part V of this Bill comes into operation six months after its enact-
682
ment, there will be no such authorities, because the provisions of the Weights and Measures Acts, 1878 to 1936, will be repealed and replaced by the provisions of Part V of this Bill. It is necessary, therefore, to enable the marking regulations made under the Act of 1955 to provide for their enforcement, but by the local weights and measures authorities exercising functions by virtue of this Bill. Until that is done there will be no authorities capable of enforcing those regulations after six months from the enactment of this Bill. The Amendment which I now move does this by providing that the reference in the Act of 1955 to local authorities for the purposes of the Weights and Measures Acts is to be construed as a reference to local weights and measures authorities for the purposes of this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 29, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 64 to 66 agreed to.
First and Second Schedules agreed to.
Third Schedule [Measures and Weights Lawful for Use for Trade]:
LORD FARINGDON: This is a small Amendment, intended principally to protect the small householder. Builders merchants frequently sell small quantities of goods, principally of sand and ballast and things of that kind, to the people who were referred to, I think, by my noble friend Lord Latham yesterday, as "Do-it-yourself" buyers. There is a particular reason why I hope the Government may be prepared to accept this Amendment: it is that this one-quarter cubic yard will, I think, satisfactorily replace the bushel which, five years after the entering into force of this Bill, will no longer be an approved measure. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to accept this Amendment which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 9, leave out ("Measures of, or of any multiple of,½ cubic yard") and insert ("Measures of ¼ cubic yard, ½ cubic yard or of any multiple of ½ cubic yard'').—(Lord Faringdon.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: For the reasons which the noble Lord has given,

683
and one or two others, the Government are willing to accept this Amendment in principle. It has been represented to the Board of Trade that measures of ¼ cubic yard and multiples of that size are needed in connection with the sale of ready-mixed cement and ready-mixed concrete. The Amendment would not permit this, although the Government recognize that when the bushel, ½ bushel and peck measures are abolished under Clause 10 five and a half years after the enactment of the Bill, a ¼ cubic yard measure may help traders who supply certain goods, such as horticultural sundriesmen, selling peat, soil, proprietary composts and so on. The measure is equal to 6¼ gallons and is therefore almost midway in size between the bushel and the half bushel. At a later stage I propose to table Amendments which will provide both for the ¼ cubic yard and also its multiples.
LORD FARINGDON: I thank the noble Earl for his reply, and on that understanding I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The noble Earl has referred to horticultural establishments. I am particularly interested in measurement in relation to reject stones from a gravel works where there are different methods of sifting and so on. If a farmer under this new legislation, when it becomes statutory, wants so many cubic yards or part cubic yards for making his roads and paths, will that be in order under this new proposal?—because at present there is no difficulty in getting a cubic yard at a time. I am not quite sure how this new arrangement will work.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I gave only some examples of commodities with which this will be more convenient, and I am glad to hear from the noble Viscount that there will be others. The Schedule applies, of course, to measures of volume which are legal for all purposes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
7.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Paragraph 1 of Part IV of the Third Schedule, as presently drafted, would permit any
684
measure of capacity, no matter of what material it was made, to be subdivided if its capacity was one quart or over. The only subdivisions permissible would, however, be gallons, quarts and pints, in the case of measures of over 1 gallon capacity; quarts and pints, in the case of measures of 1 gallon capacity; and pints, in the case of measures of 1 quart capacity. The existing regulations permit glass measures of 1 pint capacity and over to be subdivided into half pints, and it is the Government's intention that this should continue to be permissible. I beg to move
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 21, leave out from ("which") to end of line 23 and insert ("shall not be marked with divisions or subdivisions except in such cases and in such manner as may be prescribed.")—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment corresponds with the Amendment I have just moved to paragraph 1 of this Part of the Third Schedule and is designed to put the subdivision of metric measures on the same basis as that of the imperial fluid ounce, fluid drachms and minim measures. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 12, leave out from ("which") to end of line 14 and insert ("shall not be marked with divisions or subdivisions except in such cases and in such manner as may be prescribed.").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: We have now reached the end of the Fourth Schedule. In the Fifth Schedule there are a fairly large number of Amendments. I feel that we have made extraordinarily good progress to-day, and I am most grateful to your Lordships for your help and co-operation in accelerating our proceedings on this Bill. I feel that if only we can get an early start on Monday we might make very good progress indeed on that day, and possibly it might not then be necessary to sit on Wednesday morning, which I am sure none of us wants to do; but that is partly a question of luck, as we all realize.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Our progress on this Bill must depend upon what other Government Business is put on the Order Paper before the Committee stage of the Bill on Monday and Tuesday next. That is one thing about which we are nervous So far I am not too gloomy, but one cannot be certain.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It is a question of whether we can get an early start on Monday.
House resumed.