Lords Sitting of 20 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 St. Albans

THE HOMICIDE ACT
2.36 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: 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 whether they will now consider the repeal of Section 5 (1) (a) and (b) of the Homicide Act, 1957.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland are keeping the working of the Homicide Act, 1957, under close and constant review. The consequences of the Act can be assessed only over a substantial period, since the homicide rate normally fluctuates considerably from year to year and is affected by a number of factors, of which the effect of the death penalty is only one. In the Government's view it is too early to review the solution reached after much discussion less than four years ago, or to consider the repeal of the provisions to which the noble Lady refers.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, in thanking the noble and learned Viscount for his Answer, from which I would take what encouragement I may, I should Eke to remind him that he, more than anybody else, must know that when the Bill was passed through Parliament these particular provisions were included as a defence against the professional criminal. Can the noble and learned Viscount tell the House whether the persons convicted under this section have predominantly been professional criminals.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have not the comparative figures. If the noble Lady will put down that Question, I shall be pleased to get the best information I can. I have extracted the figures of the category, but that does not give the answer to her question. I am sorry that I cannot give her the information now.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount.

DESTRUCTION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS
2.38 p.m.
LORD BOSSOM: 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 whether a nation-wide effort can be made to put a stop to the steady, insidious destruction of historic buildings, which is now continuously taking place for commercial gain, by private, public-authority, and even Government or Crown owners.]
THF JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are already making great efforts, in co-operation with local authorities throughout the country and with the many national and local societies interested, to prevent the loss of historic buildings wherever this is practicable. As regards buildings in the ownership of private persons and public authorities, the system of listing under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, ensures that the possibility of preservation is first explored in every case where there is any question of demolition. The same result as regards buildings in Crown ownership is secured by interdepartmental consultation.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, I am afraid I have to say that I have been able to trace 82 buildings that have been destroyed in the last few years; and 22 more are now threatened. The Order of St. John alone have many buildings of great historic value all over

835
the country, and three of those have been destroyed and three more are threatened at the present time. But as to the real coverage of this situation—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD BOSSOM: Is my noble friend aware—though he said all such buildings were being listed, that of those in rural districts alone (and there are 475 rural districts of which only 362 have been surveyed) only 99 buildings had been listed up to July of this year? If the noble Earl could do anything to help in this matter it would be very much appreciated all over the country.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am not aware in detail of the figures which have been given, and my right honourable friend and I will certainly examine them. They hardly arise out of the Question, because, as I have said, Her Majesty's Government are taking all possible efforts to preserve these buildings; and I would draw the noble Lord's attention to the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act, 1953, under which grants for repair and maintenance can be given to these buildings. The noble Lord mentioned, as I thought he might, the Moor Hall Chapel, near Uxbridge, of the Order of Knights of St. John. That has lapsed into disuse and disrepair. There is no question of commercial gain here, however, because, private people not having found the money to preserve it, Uxbridge Council are proposing to turn the around into an open space.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer may I send him some of the information that has come to my hands?
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, is not some of the difficulty a question of user? I know of one historic building (in which, I ought to tell your Lordships, I have some kind of interest)—it is an eighteenth century house of considerable interest—which the local authority want to convert.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order!
LORD SALTOUN: Is my noble friend aware that in this case they want to convert into public offices a place which was of interest as the home of a family—
836
a change which would entirely destroy its character? And is not the question of user often a very material part of the question of what is to be done when a historic place comes into the market?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I have no doubt that the question of user is taken into consideration, but I am afraid that I do not know to what particular building the noble Lord is referring, for he gave me no notice of that.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether the Government are quite certain that the local authorities of the country know what steps have to be taken about this matter and that they have in their hands the information that has been given in the House this afternoon?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, one can never be quite certain about anything. But the Act of 1947 has been on the Statute Book for some time, and the system of scheduling buildings of historic interest has certainly been in the minds of the local authorities for many years. These schedules are being maintained, to my knowledge, in my own part of the country, at any rate.

GREY CLOTH IMPORTS
2.44 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: 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 how many yards of grey cloth were imported into this country during the twelve months up to the end of September, 1959, and in the twelve months up to the end of September, 1960, from India, Hong Kong, Spain and the United States of America, and what are the figures in yardage for the same period for finished cloth and made up garments.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, United Kingdom imports from the countries named during the twelve months ended September, 1959, and September, 1960, were 299 and 399 million square yards of grey cloth, and 12 and 30 million square yards of finished cotton cloth respectively. The value of

837
imports from the same countries of those cotton made-up garments identifiable in the trade statistics for the same periods were £900,000 and £2 million respectively. The statistical information on which I have based this Answer is sum-

UNITED KINGDOM IMPORTS

October, 1958— September, 1959

October, 1959— September, 1960

Thousand sq. yds.

Thousand sq. yds.

Grey Cloth

India

154,853

243,524

Hong Kong

141,337

106,211

Spain

2,567

45,434

U.S.A.

6

3,633

Finished Cotton Cloth

India

7,444

8,491

Hong Kong

3,589

10,994

Spain

970

6,069

U.S.A.

173

4,711

Total imports from all sources

65,580

117,557

Quantity

Value

Quantity

Value

dozens

(£'000)

dozens

(£'000)

Made Up Cotton Garments

(a)underwear—

India

—

—

—

—

Hong Kong

906,234

750

1,800,396

1,490

Spain

2,416

2

164,460

93

U.S.A.

1,918

10

365

4

Total imports from all sources

1,456,122

1,279

2,091,764

1,805

Quantity

Quantity

garments

garments

(b)other—

India

—

—

—

—

Hong Kong

860,032

144

2,088,469

342

Spain

—

—

5,830

6

U.S.A.

639

3

158,815

154

Total imports from all sources

1,515,478

1,222

3,182,577

1,979

Total value of imports of made up garments from all sources

2,501

3,784

(a)Knitted or crocheted underwear containing more than 50 per cent. of cotton.
(b)Women's and Girls' costumes, suits, dresses, coats and skirts.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lords understand the reply we have had. I appreciate the difficulty of giving many figures in this matter. May I ask the Government whether it is not a fact that imports of grey cloth and finished cotton cloth from Hong Kong have, taking one year with another, gone down by quite a considerable amount, whereas from other countries, such as Spain, they have increased about twenty-fold; and, indeed, there
838
marised in a table which I will, with your Lordships' permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have sent a copy of it to the noble Lord.
Following is the table referred to:
have been similar increases from America and other countries?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, there have been variations in the imports of cotton piece goods and on made-up goods from Hong Kong. Imports of made-up goods have increased substantially during the last two years, but imports of piece goods from Hong Kong have declined this year. I think that the figures for the other countries mentioned in the noble Lord's Question

839
will be available in the table of figures which I am circulating.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, while the quantities and values of made-up garments from Hong Kong have risen considerably, would the noble Earl not agree that those amounts are taken into account in the sort of global figure that was agreed by the Hong Kong manufacturers and the Cotton Board as to what should be the annual limit for grey and finished cloth? Would the noble Earl not agree that, following, the success of the Government's redundancy scheme, whereby, I believe, to-day 50 per cent. of the spinning capacity has been abolished and 40 per cent. of the weaving capacity has been abolished, we shall have considerable shortages in this country and shall require considerable importations of grey and finished cloth? And could the Government not look once again at the position of Hong Kong imports into this country?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, that really all arises on the next Question on the Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. But, since the noble Lord has asked about production in Lancashire, I would say that I do not think there is any difficulty on the part of consumers in getting what they want. There has been a rise in demand, mainly owing to the need for making up stocks which were depleted during the 1958 recession. But in spite of the very great shortage of labour in Lancashire, and in spite of the temporary disorganisation which is inevitable during the process of reorganisation, production has been kept up and it is expected to increase as soon as the process of re-equipment under the Act begins.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is the noble Earl not aware that on a two-fold haircord—cotton haircord—the standard quality of Lancashire, many of the leading producers are now quoting delivery seven to eight months ahead?

HONG KONG COTTON GOODS QUOTA
2.48 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: 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, in view of the present textile boom and the difficulty of obtaining certain textiles in this country and in the light of the need to help and encourage the people of Hong Kong with their tremendous refugee problem, they will urge the Cotton Board to consider relaxing the quota restrictions voluntarily agreed to by this British Colony.]
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government fully recognise the need to help and encourage Hong, Kong with its refugee problem, and are aware of the great efforts which the Government and people of the Colony are making to deal with it. The undertaking of the Hong Kong textile industry to limit exports of cotton goods to the United Kingdom was, however, made after negotiations on an inter-industry basis between the Cotton Board and the Hong Kong industry. Modification of the existing arrangements accordingly is a matter which falls to be settled between the two industries. The recent visit to Hong Kong of Lord Rochdale, Chairman of the Cotton Board, provided an opportunity for each side to become acquainted with the other's views about the undertaking and these views are now being considered carefully by all concerned. In these circumstances, I do not think that intervention on the Government's part would be appropriate at the present stage.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, does the noble Earl—or Her Majesty's Government—not realise that there is in fact a world textile boom that Lancashire is at the moment unable to meet orders? I know of a particular case of an order that has gone to the United States, an order that would have gone to Hong Kong had it not been for the agreement in regard to finished cloth that Lancashire could not supply. And would not the noble Earl say something

841
a little more encouraging for the people of Hong Kong, who feel very hurt and aggrieved that an agreement made in different circumstances should be so firmly maintained in a totally different situation? May I also ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that in Hong Kong it is generally believed that this agreement was brought about under pressure from Her Majesty's Government in order to ensure a Conservative victory in the last Election? That is frequently said in Hong Kong.
LORD REA: My Lords, before the noble Earl answers, might I ask him whether he is aware that, in view of the very difficult position in Hong Kong, some people in this country are a little doubtful about the amount of voluntariness there was in the agreement? It has never been made particularly clear why this Colony should suddenly and voluntarily have reduced her exports. Could the discussions now going on between the industries be made public in some way?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the agreement was an entirely voluntary one between the Cotton Board here and the Hong Kong industry. There is not the slightest foundation for any idea that it was arrived at under pressure from the Government, still less that any electoral considerations were involved. I had not myself heard this idea, and I am glad to have the opportunity now of contradicting it most emphatically.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, whilst it is true that the agreement was finally made between the cotton manufacturers in Hong Kong and the Cotton Board in this country, does the noble Earl not remember that the Government sent out the Permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade to lay the foundations for the discussions before that agreement was made? Would the noble Earl and the Government draw the attention of the Cotton Board to the desire of Her Majesty's Government to liberalise trade and the development of Commonwealth trade, and, I believe, the desire in this country to give aid and assistance, by means of trade, to under-developed countries?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, what we want to do is to assist both the Lancashire cotton industry and the
842
Hong Kong industry, and our good offices are always at the disposal of both of them. But the agreement they have made is a voluntary agreement, and any modification must be as a result of discussion between the two industries. I should like to say that the Government most sincerely sympathise with the present difficulties of Hong Kong, particularly in respect of the refugee problem.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am sorry to press the Minister, but while his denial on political pressure will be noted (though I think, on the whole, not believed in Hong Kong), may I ask him whether the Government could not intervene in a matter which is of real Commonwealth importance, and on which feeling is extremely strong, and whether he would not agree that this is a matter as to which, by wise generosity at this stage, we can in fact gain much for the future?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am sure that all considerations of that kind are present in the minds both of the Cotton Board and of those with whom they have been negotiating. But, as I said in my original Answer, I do not think intervention on the Government's part would be appropriate at the present stage.

N.A.T.O. COUNCIL MEETING
2.55 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I thought the House might like a very short account of the recent N.A.T.O. meeting. This was the regular December meeting of the N.A.T.O. Council, and the communiqué which was issued, and which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, shows the wide range of subjects discussed.
The main business of this year's meeting was to discuss the long-range planning of the Alliance, in all its aspects, and particularly on the military side. As the House is aware, the United States Government have been giving thought to the need to strengthen the N.A.T.O. Alliance, and to the problem of keeping up to date the deterrent and defensive forces of N.A.T.O. in the coming years. With these objectives in

843
mind, the American Secretary of State outlined to the Council the concept of a multilateral Medium Range Ballistic Missile force for N.A.T.O. He put this forward for discussion and consideration, and not for immediate decisions. At the same time, and as a first step towards the objectives he has in mind, Mr. Herter announced his Government's intention to commit to N.A.T.O. five Polaris submarines before the end of 1963. It was made clear that these five submarines would operate in accordance with existing procedures. Thus no change in the control arrangements for nuclear forces is involved. He also gave an assurance that the United States in-tended not to withdraw from the N.A.T.O. area American nuclear weapons allotted to N.A.T.O.
The Permanent Representatives will now study the whole problem of the N.A.T.O. defence capability in the light of the American suggestions. The study will include an examination of the purposes, control and deployment of N.A.T.O.'s nuclear anmoury. This is a point to which I and my right honourable friend the Minister of Defence drew particular attention.
As regards non-military matters, it was agreed that the North Atlantic Treaty itself requires no amendment, but that fuller use should be made of the machinery we now have, especially with a view Ito improving political consultation between member-countries. This, too, will be worked out by the Permanent Representatives on the basis of a report by the Secretary General and other suggestions made during the meeting. It will be further considered at the Ministerial meeting in Oslo next May.
Following is the Final Communiqué of the Ministerial Session of the North Atlantic Council, December 16–18, 1960, referred to in Lord Home's statement:
The regular Ministerial session of the North Atlantic Council was held in Paris from December 16th to 18th, 1960.
2. The Ministers engaged in an extensive review of the international situation—political, military and economic. In pursuance of decisions previously taken, they also considered the question of long-term planning on the basis of a progress report from the Secretary General and suggestions put forward by Governments.
I
3. The Council reaffirmed the solidarity of the Alliance and their dedication to the principle of the settlement of all disputes by peaceful means, without recourse to the use of force or threats. They declared their determination to work for a lasting improvement in international relations, in which freedom, national independence and law would be respected. This would be true peaceful coexistence free from all idea of world domination.
4. The Council deplored the lack of progress during the past year on disarmament, resulting from the Communist states' withdrawal from the Ten-Power Conference before even examining the Western proposals. The Council reaffirmed their support for the principles expressed in those proposals as a basis for attaining their common objective of general and complete disarmament by stages under effective international control. They expressed their hope for the early resumption of negotiations.
5. The Council regretted the lack of progress on the reunification of Germany on the basis of self-determination. With regard to Berlin, the Council reaffirmed their declaration of December 16th, 1958. In face of the recent Soviet threats and harassing tactics, they once again declared their determination to protect the freedom of the people of West Berlin.
II
6. In order that the Atlantic Alliance may pursue its constructive purposes in peace and without fear, confronted as it is by the menace of growing Communist military strength, the North Atlantic nations must be able to respond to any attack with whatever force might be appropriate. There must be a proper balance in the forces of the Alliance of nuclear and conventional strength to provide the required flexibility. The Ministers, in the light of the Annual Review, took note of the progress which had been made, and expressed their determination to continue their efforts to improve the deterrent and defensive strength of the Alliance.
7. In this connection, the United States Government suggested the concept of an M.R.B.M. multilateral force for consideration by the Alliance. The Council took note of the United States suggestion with great interest and instructed the Permanent Representatives to study the suggestion and related matters in detail.
The Council welcomed the assurance of the United States to maintain in the N.A.T.O. area United States nuclear weapons made available to N.A.T.O.
8 At the same time, the Council agreed on the equal importance of strengthening the shield forces of N.A.T.O. in other respects so that there can be no possibility of miscalculation or misunderstanding of the Alliance's determination and ability to resist aggression by whatever means are appropriate and necessary.
9. The Ministers noted with satisfaction the steps so far taken in response to the proposals

845
made by Defence Ministers in Spring, 1960, in the field of logistics and for co-operation in research, development and production of military equipment. They urged all parties concerned to press on with the projects already selected, and to study what further projects are suitable for co-operative action.
III
10. The Ministers examined the report submitted to them on long-term planning, in particular with regard to political consultation and economic problems.
11. They reaffirmed their determination to pursue within the Alliance comprehensive political consultation designed to achieve the closest possible co-ordination of their views and unity of action. They studied ways and means of achieving this result.
12. In the economic field, they welcomed the creation of the O.E.C.D. which, by promoting balanced economic growth and the expansion of world trade, will benefit all the nations of the free world.
13. They emphasised the importance they attach to the development of the less-favoured countries of the Alliance.
14. Comprising as they do more industrially developed Atlantic nations recognise responsibility in the field of developed countries.
15. The Ministers instructed the Permanent Representatives to follow up previous studies to enable the countries of the Alliance to watch the development of the Communist economic offensive and to concert the necessary defensive measures.
16. The Secretary General was invited to draw up a report on these various questions which will be examined at the Spring Ministerial Meeting of the North Atlantic Council.
17. This meeting will take place at the invitation of the Norwegian Government, in Oslo in May, 1961.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, we are grateful to the Foreign Secretary for the statement he has made, and we shall be able to make a study of it alongside the communiqué which will be circulated. May I ask him, first of all, whether it is not a fact that there is a very considerable volume of opinion in this country against the idea of turning N.A.T.O., in any form, into a fourth nuclear Power? And, while I note what the Foreign Secretary says, that at the present moment there is no proposal for changing the control, nevertheless it seems to be going to be discussed by the Permanent Representatives, among the other matters listed. In that connection—since we are going on Christmas vacation now, though we shall be having a debate on the
846
Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, on January 25—,would it be possible to give us, well in time for that debate, a statement, perhaps having it circulated, as to what has been done by the Permanent Representatives in this matter? Or is that going to be left until the main meeting? If so, it seems to be exceedingly late.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, on the question of a fourth nuclear Power, the noble Viscount will recollect the point which I emphasised in my statement: that I think the time has come when N.A.T.O. should review the purpose of the Alliance. It is, of course, a tactical purpose now, arid I think the N.A.T.O. Permanent Council should look at the whole question of the purpose, what weapons are necessary to achieve that purpose, and what change, if any, is needed in the system of control, or whether it should remain as it is. Now that will be a considerable field of examination, and I should anticipate that at the main meeting we shall probably get only an interim report from the Council; because, if the whole purpose has to be looked at, that will take some time. I think we can have a useful debate in January, because I should like to hear the minds of noble Lords on this subject. It will help us to make up our own minds as to what policy to follow in the future.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, might I ask the Foreign Secretary, first of all, whether the Permanent Representatives will consider the question of the political control of these weapons—which, as we all know, is one of the most difficult questions which has to be considered; and, secondly, whether, at the meeting of the Council that was held just recently, any consideration was given to the decisions of the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarian's Conference which met in Paris in November last and at which a number of your Lordships were representatives?
THE EARL OF HOME: We have had the benefit, of course, of seeing and knowing the conclusions of the Parliamentarians who had studied this matter. Certainly I think it is the Permanent Council which, first of all at the level of permanent delegates, and then, of course, at the level of Foreign Ministers when we meet in May, will have the duty

847
of considering, as I have said, the purpose and nature of the weapons and the control—and that means, of course, the political control.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.0 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I should like to inform the House that my noble friend Lord Perth will be making a statement at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. on the security of land titles in Kenya. With regard to the Weights and Measures Bill, it has been agreed that the House will sit until 8 o'clock on further consideration of the Committee stage of this Bill, and then, after that, the Trustee Investments Bill Report will be taken. The House will sit through dinner. Dinners will be available between seven and nine o'clock, and it would be helpful to the restaurant if noble Lords could have their dinners during that period. Depending on what progress is made this afternoon, it will probably be necessary for the House to meet at approximately 11.45 a.m. tomorrow to continue the Committee stage of the Weights and Measures Bill, which will be carried on through lunch until 2.30 p.m. If it has not been concluded then, it may be necessary to return to the Committee stage after the debate on Greater London.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That is to say, continue to-morrow night?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: Yes.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I understand that. I had a suggestion made to me to-day that we might have to meet on Thursday. I hope that will not be done in any case, because practically all our arrangements are made.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: That is why I suggested that we met on Wednesday night to continue the Bill, because I felt it would be much more convenient to noble Lords than meeting on Thursday.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (MARRIED WOMEN) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS, 1960
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, these new Regulations make a technical Amendment to the National Insurance
848
(Married Women) Amendment Regulations, 1948, which is necessary to fulfil the intention of the National Insurance Act, 1959. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft National Insurance (Married Women) Amendment Regulations, 1960, be approved.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (MARINERS) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS, 1960
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, these Regulations modify the new scheme of graduated contributions and graduated pensions in respect of mariners for the purpose of making it as easy as possible for contributions to be collected by masters of ships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft National Insurance (Mariners) Amendment Regulations, 1960, be approved.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
One Question, Motion agreed to.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Fifth Schedule (continued):
PART VII
Fresh fruits and vegetables
1. References in this Part of this Schedule to fruits or vegetables of any description are references to such fruits or vegetables either—

(a)in the state in which they were harvested; or

(b)in the said state apart from cleaning or trimming or

2. Subject to paragraph 4 of this Part of this Schedule, potatoes

(b)shall be pre-packed only—

(i) in one of the following quantities by net weight, that is to say, eight ounces, twelve ounces, one pound, one and a half pounds or a multiple of one pound and

(2) On a sale by retail of any goods to which this paragraph applies which are not pre-packed in a container marked with an indication of quantity, being quantity by net weight or, in the case of countable produce, quantity either by net weight or by number, the quantity of the goods sold, being—

(a)quantity by net weight or, in the case of countable produce, quantity either by net weight or by number; or

(b)if the goods are sold in a container which does not exceed the appropriate permitted weight specified, in the case of soft fruits, in Table C or, in any other case, in Table B of Part XIII of this Schedule, quantity either by net weight or by gross weight,

shall be made known to the buyer at or before delivery of the goods to him.
(3) Goods to which this paragraph applies shall he pre-packed in a container which exceeds the appropriate permitted weight aforesaid only if the container is marked with an indication of quantity, being—

(a)quantity by net weight; or

(b)in the case of countable produce, quantity either by net weight or by number.

4. The following shall be exempted from any requirement of this Part of this Schedule which would otherwise apply thereto, that is to say—

(c)a pre-packed collection of not more than six articles of countable produce within the meaning of paragraph 3 of this Part of this Schedule, if the container is such that the nature and number of those articles can be clearly seen by a prospective purchaser;

(d)bunched carrots;

(e)any goods in a quantity of less than one ounce.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The Committee will no doubt remember that, when we adjourned last evening, we were engaged in debating Amendment No. 124, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham.
LORD STONHAM: I had thought that the discussion on this particular Amendment would be quite short and had indeed, hoped so. I think it appeared likely to become prolonged because the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, in his reply, did not quite appreciate the reasons why it was proposed to insert the words
"the removal of inedible or extraneous matter, or cutting, dicing or slicing".
This wording is exactly the wording used in the Board of Trade's own Regulations, namely, the Weights and Measures (Pre-packed Food) Marking Regulations, 1957. They are the latest regulations on this particular subject
850
and it was mainly for that reason that that wording was used in this particular Amendment. It appeared likely last night that we might have been going to have a discussion on "net weight at the time of packing", which I should have regretted, because, in the hope that we might proceed with rather more expedition, I should prefer not to have this discussion on this particular Amendment, or on the following two Amendments with regard to potatoes, which deal in fact with a particular aspect of that problem. I should prefer to have the main discussion on Amendment No. 128—that is, on the principle of net weight at the time of packing. I hope the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, is now in a position to agree that the point I have now made regarding the wording of this Amendment was not fully appreciated by him last night, and that he will give an assurance that he will look into that point. If so, we might end this particular discussion.
LORD ST. OSWALD: if tried to make my reasons for resisting the noble Lord's Amendment, on the information that we had, quite clear last night. The noble Lord is quite right in suggesting that there is now a system of packing diced, cut-up vegetables, of which at that time I had no knowledge at all, though I imagine he had. With that sudden piece of new information, I think it only right that I undertake to look at it anew.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, and I ask (leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.7 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in paragraph 2(b), after "weight" to insert "at the time of packing ". The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment, standing in my name and that of my noble friends. This Amendment, which I hope we can take with the next one, No. 126, since they are both on the same point, deals with potatoes. As the Bill stands at present, potatoes are the only example of horticultural produce which must be marked with a net weight statement. I should have thought it most desirable that there should be as little differentiation as possible between similar types of produce, and that identical reasoning applies to pre-packed

851
potatoes as to other fruits and vegetables, referred to in a later Amendment concerning the necessity of a "net weight at the time of packing" being permitted. It is for that reason that I should prefer to defer until we come to the later Amendment discussion on the principle of net weight at the time of packing.
However, with regard to the particular position of potatoes, which I hope the noble Lord will bear in mind, the net weight marking is required under existing legislation—that is not disputed. But it is already causing very considerable difficulty among retail traders, particularly where potatoes are pre-packed in a damp state after washing. Anyone who has been to a pre-packing plant knows that that is inevitable, because the potatoes are sorted, graded, the waste ones thrown out, and then they are washed and dried on a conveyor and, after weighing, are put into the polythene bags. It is recognised that they lose weight fairly rapidly as they dry out and overweight packing is the rule. They are, in fact, packed overweight to the extent of 5 per cent., but even that is not normally sufficient. For example, on Saturday, just to make a personal test, I went to a greengrocer's and bought a package of potatoes which had been packed by one of the leading houses, a house of the very highest repute. On the package appeared the statement: "Minimum net weight, 5 lbs." I took it home and weighed it, and I found that the actual weight was 4 lb. 11 oz. I am not suggesting that it is the case—in fact I know it is not—that there was any dishonesty whatsoever on the part of the firm. They had, in fact, packed the potatoes quite substantially overweight, and, so far as they were aware, there was no likelihood that when the potatoes were actually sold they would be underweight. I mention that illustration merely to emphasise this particular difficulty.
To-day something like 280 million packs of pre-packed potatoes are being sold every year. Their popularity is increasing weekly. But, under the present regulations, a large number of them have to be check-weighed at the retail end, even though they lose weight much more slowly than other fruits and
852
vegetables. Therefore, I submit this Amendment for the consideration of the Government. Experience over the last four days has taught me not to expect acceptance, but I ask the noble Earl to look at the point and, in conjunction with the other Amendment which I shall move later, to see whether we can come to an agreement about it at a later stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 9, after ("weight") insert ("at the time of packing").—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: As the noble Lord has explained, the combined effect of the two Amendments would be that packers would be under no obligation, when packing potatoes to one of the weights specified in subparagraph (b) (i) of paragraph 2, to make any allowance whatever for loss of weight due Ito evaporation during distribution and storage, and would be required only to mark the packs with their weight "when packed", instead of with their net weight at the time of their subsequent sale. According to our information, which appears to disagree slightly with that of the noble Lord, potatoes are not subject to a very rapid rate of loss by reason of evaporation, and packers should be able readily to assess the probable loss of weight over an average period and allow for it in packing. As the noble Lord himself has pointed out, ever since 1926, potatoes have been required to be sold by net weight, and when they are pre-packed, the containers have had to be marked with the net weight of their contents. We are not aware that this has in the past occasioned any great difficulty to packers or consumers.
While appreciating and being very ready to meet the noble Lord's wish that the main argument on pre-packed weight should be left to a later Amendment, I think that in asking the Committee to resist this Amendment. I am bound to say that it strikes at the roots of the principle of weight marking—namely, that when anyone consults a statement of quantity on a pre-packed article he should be able to be sure that, except for a loss of weight which could not reasonably be anticipated by the packer, the goods are not less than the quantity stated. That is not the argument for

853
our point of view; it is our point of view, which I thought I was bound to mention in resisting the Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: I would only say that for many pre-packed commodities marking weight subject to evaporation is now extremely common. I do not know whether the noble Lord intended to say, on the question of principle, that even that kind of marking, equally with the one I suggested, would be wholly contrary to the Government's view.
LORD ST. OSWALD: With the noble Lord, I do not want to enter into the main argument at this stage. The point is that we believe that the weight at sale should be estimated and marked, while the noble Lord thinks that the weight at packing should be marked. We shall have to discuss that later, but I mention it in order to say that, within our own convictions on the wider matter, of course, we will examine the points that the noble Lord has made.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I do not think that the Government have got the point yet. There is now a sharp expansion in self-service stores, and to make them fully successful we must not suddenly increase the number of staff. The remark just made about pre-packed potatoes having to be weighed and marked at the time of sale interrupts the whole process of the consumer in a self-service store, whose shelves are stocked with pre-packed goods ready to take away. I can see no reason why the Government should not accept this Amendment. They can leave it to the officers who conduct the administration of these stores to estimate the amount of tolerance and say whether the tolerance which is being followed by the salesmen is too high. I cannot understand the Government on this matter.
LORD STONHAM: On the assurance given by the noble Lord to look into this, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.16 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in paragraph 3 (1), to leave out sub-paragraph (b), relating to soft fruits. The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will recall
854
that during the discussion on Clause 22 I moved an Amendment which was designed to exclude soft fruits from the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, in replying to the case I then put forward, said that the Amendment would be much better in place where I am now moving it. We have secured agreement so far. In refusing the previous Amendment, the noble Lord pointed out that, as drafted and in that place in the Bill, the Amendment would take out of the Bill canned and bottled soft fruits, which certainly was not my intention. Therefore, I accepted his criticism. Now I am moving this Amendment with the express intention of removing soft fruits from the provisions of the Bill.
I do not want to go over again the arguments that I previously adduced, but I want to summarise them briefly in this way. Almost everywhere soft fruits are picked and packed in the field in punnets. They are mostly grown by quite small growers, many of them working collectively or adjacent to each other. They are put straight on to transport and sent to the market. They are subject to loss by evaporation, spillage and pilfering. The present method of packing direct in the field in punnets is an immense improvement on the system of years ago, when larger containers were used and fruit had to be tipped out before being sold, and was thus greatly deteriorated. The effect of the Bill, as it is at present, would be to disrupt the whole industry and, in my view, would in large measure finally ruin an industry Which, without dispute, is the most depressed industry in the country.
We have accepted the principle that, while it is our desire in every possible way to protect the interests of consumers, we do not wish to impose on industry restrictions which are so impracticable as to be impossible of observance and which will seriously damage the industry. I would remind your Lordships that the Government have taken this view of other industries. They have decided, for example, that imported cheeses should be virtually excluded from the provisions of the Bill. The noble Lord said only yesterday, and quite rightly, that the main reason for that was because they were subject to evaporation. Equally, these articles are subject to evaporation. I am submitting to your Lordships that

855
what can be done for foreign cheese producers ought to be done for the home-growers of soft fruit. The cases are virtually parallel, except that the case for the soft fruit growers is infinitely stronger than that of the producers of foreign cheese, although the foreign cheese producers lobby and their pressure may, like their cheeses, be stronger than that of the soft fruit growers. I ask the Government to examine this particular case, with which I dealt at length a few days ago, and to compare it with the decision which has already been taken, quite rightly, in my view, in relation to the importers and distributors of imported cheese. I invite them to take the same action in regard to soft fruits, to accept this Amendment and to exclude soft fruits from the provisions of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 18, leave out sub-paragraph (b).—(Lord Stonham)
LORD ST. OSWALD: This Amendment would mean that loose sales of soft fruits would not have to be on a weight basis, and although, in practice, most loose sales are by weight it would enable the retailer to sell them by dry measure, if he so wished, which would not be desirable from the consumers point of view. Quite naturally, the noble Lord has related his Amendment to the sales of these fruits when pre-packed—that is, when packed in the traditional punnets or baskets. This, as the noble Lord has appreciated, touches upon one of the most difficult questions with which the Bill attempts to deal. At the moment the public are open to serious fraud in this trade, because the punnets are not completely enclosed, since the fruit needs air to preserve its quality, and since traders along the line of distribution may justifiably take out the odd fruit which is going bad so as to preserve the quality of the others. This does, however, also enable anyone who wishes to help himself to a strawberry or two before the punnet reaches the shop. Further, these fruits themselves are liable to a considerable loss of weight by evaporation. So that, as the noble Lord said, when these goods are offered for sale, as they usually are in ½lb. or 1 lb. punnets, the public have no assurance as to the amount of fruit contained in them. We accept, all
856
the same, that it would not be equitable to require the packer to mark these punnets with the weight of their contents.
With all the foregoing considerations in mind, we have come to the conclusion that the only solution fair to the public and growers alike is the one described in Part VII—namely, that the buyer shall be entitled to know from the retailer the gross weight of the fruit and the punnet and will have the assurance that the weight of the punnet itself shall not exceed a certain limit. We appreciate that any requirement which the Bill imposes on the packer, the wholesaler or the retailer in the fruit trade is likely to have some repercussions upon the relations in one part of the trade with the others, and that some readjustment of the old-established ways of doing things may have to be made. In the present case, nevertheless, we feel sure that the packer, the wholesaler and the retailer of these soft fruits, which everyone enjoys, will work together in co-operation and goodwill to implement this form of protection, which would equally be to the benefit of the public.
LORD STONHAM: I am sure they will work together, as they do now, and serve the public; but the Government are putting on them a quite impossible task. All that the noble Lord said about the defects of this system that I propose applies with equal force to the imported cheeses, it somebody buys a packet of imported cheese that is enclosed in a container, it need not be marked with the weight, either net or gross, and the purchaser does not know until he opens it what is inside. But with the open punnet people can at least see what they ere buying, and in some cases can almost count the berries. I am only asking the noble Lord now to look at that parallel within the next week or so; and if he does, I think he will come to the conclusion that, in order to be consistent, the Government must, in the case of soft fruit, take exactly the same decision as they already have taken in regard to cheese.
LORD WOLVERTON: I want to say only a few words on this matter. This is one of the most important subjects that we have to deal with in this Bill. I spent some time talking with the chief inspector of my own authority on this

857
subject, and he assured me that in the self-service stores and supermarkets they have behind the scenes quite a large staff continually weighing this perishable stuff daily and remarking the prices. I should be in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, if it put the onus on the pre-packer; but it does not. As my noble friend Lord St. Oswald rightly said, it puts the onus on the retailer. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, said tit would put the retailer in an impossible position in the big service stores. The inspector assured me that they re-weigh these things very often because of their rapid deterioration. I think it is important that it should be said, for the protection of the consumer, that though a few strawberries may be pilfered on the way, they are made up again to the correct weight.
LORD HAWKE: When I used to market blackcurrants I never found any difficulty about filling the punnets with the correct weight at my end, and a little over. Any difficulty that may arise must arise in the retailer's establishment. I cannot see, from reading the Bill, whether or not the pre-packed goods have to be re-weighed for the consumer or whether the fact that they originally weighed 4 lb. or 12 lb. is sufficient. The consumer has of recent years been more and more swindled over strawberries, and I hope that the provisions of this Bill will help to remedy this state of affairs; though I do not believe there has been any degree of misrepresentation over the other fruits. Could my noble friend tell me what happens at the retail end to what has been properly weighed at the despatching end?
LORD ST. OSWALD: I have told noble Lords that the buyer will be entitled to know from the retailer the gross weight of the fruit and the punnet and will have the assurance that the weight of the, punnet itself will not exceed a certain limit. I hope that that satisfies my noble friend. That is what the easterner will have to be told when he buys the fruit.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, compared the discussion on cheese on another day with this one. I should like him to know that the exempted cheese represents only 20 per cent. of the total sales; whereas he wanted to exclude all
858
soft fruit., Much of that cheese is sold loose or used by manufacturers, and the amount of pre-packed cheese not covered by Part III of the Schedule is very small indeed. We seem to be talking a lot about foreign cheese, as if the whole 20 per cent. were covered; but in fact not all of it by any means is imported. As regards the last question the noble Lord asked me, obviously I always read his words with great care, and if I can find anything in them on reading them through to make me think that I am wrong in this regard I will certainly bring them to the notice of my right honourable friend.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: This Amendment merely proposes that mulberries, which I presume have been excluded in error, should be included among the list of soft fruits listed in Part VII. Although I agree that they are one of the less common fruits there is, nevertheless, a substantial sale, particularly in some parts of the country, and in order that we should be consistent I think they should be inserted in the Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 21, after ("loganberries") insert ("mulberries").—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: The noble Lord's powerful argument on behalf of the mulberry has entirely convinced me, and I readily accept his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in paragraph 3, to leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
"(2) Any sale by retail of any goods to which this paragraph applies, other than countable produce which may be gold either by net weight or by number shall be by net weight only, the weight for pre-packed goods shall be net weight at the time of packing."
The noble Lord said: This is the Amendment to which I referred earlier, which covers the whole principle of our argument for net weight at the time of packing in connection with pre-packed vegetables. I would ask your Lordships to note that with this Amendment we

859
reject as quite unnecessary the need for a container allowance. The container allowance comes out, and we ask that the net weight in pre-packed goods should be the net weight at the time of packing. This Bill is designed to cover practically all consumer goods, but in its effect it takes no account whatever of the fact that pre-packed fresh fruit and vegetables are staple goods purchased in large volume and goods which, above all, contain from 70 to 90 per cent. of water. They are all losing weight continuously, often rapidly, and certainly unavoidably.
Although we agree that weighing is essential at some stage, the weight of these goods will inevitably vary if they are weighed repeatedly, as they must be, under the terms of the Bill at present. We submit that the quantity of pre-packed produce must be defined at a given point of time. When produce is packed it is made up in quantities as determined by the packer for sale to the public. It is only at this point that the quantity of produce intended to be purveyed can be identified. It will inevitably change subsequently, but the quantity remains the same. If there are fifteen Brussels sprouts packed in a net or polythene bag, and two days later those sprouts are 10 per cent. less in weight—and that does happen—nevertheless they are the same fifteen sprouts. The quantity, so far as the housewife is concerned, is the same. But as drafted the Bill maintains that quantity can be defined only in terms of weight. Therefore, if the packer is going to be within the terms of this Bill, he must pack substantially overweight.
I know the noble Lord will say, quite rightly, that the packer does not have to mark these goods and, therefore, he does not have to pack them overweight. But what happens in practice is that the retailer will, say, buy 50 pre-packs of Brussels sprouts and ask the packer the weight, because obviously that will determine the price he pays. The packer tells him the weight. They are 1 lb. packs, and he sells them as such, or wants to sell them as such. When self-service stores are handling 2,000, 3,000 or 4,000 of these bags a day, it is absolutely necessary that they should not be under the necessity of this constant weighing. Therefore, the retailers will demand to know the purported weight.
860
This is necessary because subsection (4) of Clause 25 will interpret their weight at any time in the future—that is the extraordinary thing—as being the same as the weight when they were packed.
With horticultural produce, this is manifestly absurd. Of course it cannot be the same as when they were packed. The Government cannot, in all honesty, deny this absurdity. If the packs are not marked, the packers retailer customer will nevertheless insist upon substantial overweight, and the cost of this will have to be added to the cost of the pack and be passed on to the housewife who, in effect, will be paying for so much evaporated water. Even if the packer does pre-pack overweight, there can he no guarantee whatsoever that when the goods are actually sold they will not be underweight, because it depends upon how long after they are packed they are sold, and also on the atmospheric conditions—whether it is a hot, sunny, time—and even on the temperature in the shop.
What are the safeguards afforded to traders? The packer in most circumstances can get off scot free, but the retailer is almost always going to be in trouble, because Clause 27 (1) (b) requires that retailers take "all reasonable precautions". What are "reasonable precautions" in handling goods which lose weight minute by minute? Certainly every pack will have to be weighed when received, and again at least once a day if unsold. The volume of pre-packed produce in larger stores and supermarkets would make it utterly impracticable, because it might involve 2,000 or 3,000 weighings daily, which again would have to be paid for by the housewife.
There is one certain and easy way in which the retailer can safeguard himself. Every night he can dip unsold bags in water; he can soak them in water, and they will probably be overweight. But, surely, it is not in the interests of the housewife that the retailer should give all his unsold pre-packs a drink in order to satisfy this requirement—because that is the only change that has happened; some of the weight has evaporated out of them. All he has to do if the Government insist on this provision is to drop them in a tank overnight and take them out in the morning. There is a safeguard for

861
the retailer in Clause 26 (1), where some protection is given to him where goods are found to Abe below weight through no fault of the retailer. But subparagraphs (e) and (f) remove the defence of warranty from the retailer's reach in the case of pre-packed produce. Obviously he must be aware that the weight of the pack has altered from what is stated in the warranty unless they were packed to a superior weight. His only defence is in Clause 27 (a), that the offence was due to some other cause beyond his control. Weight loss is indeed beyond his or anyone else's control, so he is thrown back again on to "reasonable precautions", and the burden on the retailer is almost intolerable.
The Bill attempts, and it fails, to provide a workable method of consumer protection by enforcement of a known weight at the time of retail sale, and I submit that the only possibility, other than excluding these pre-packed vegetables from the Bill, which I do not think anybody wants, is to say that the net weight shall be the weight at the time of packing. There are only a few hundred of these packers. Very little inspection would be needed to do the inspecting at the packing end instead of thousands of retail points. It would be much easier and much more reliable. It would certainly save the retailer from an unjust and an impossible position, and at the same time would help the industry that we all want to help to expand, and to expand the pre-packing of vegetables, which is the one real hope of horticulture for the future. I hope that I have made this case clear and that the noble Earl will seriously consider it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 30, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert the said new sub-paragraph.—(Lord Stonham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Before we discuss this Amendment I think it might be convenient that your Lordships should now hear the statement from my noble friend Lord Perth. I therefore move the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

KENYA: SECURITY OF LAND TITLES
3.42 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, with your permission, I will make this statement which is similar to one that my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary is making in another place at this moment on the security of land titles in Kenya.
At the Lancaster House Conference there were proposals from all the delegates for the enactment of a code to protect the fundamental rights of the individual, including his rights in property. Her Majesty's Government then undertook to provide for the judicial protection of human rights in the new Constitution.
Her Majesty's Government have noted increasing recognition among Kenya political leaders of the need for measures and policies which will encourage the expansion of local and overseas investment. We welcome this recognition because without security and confidence private investment in agriculture and industry will not take place, and it will also be extremely difficult to proceed with resettlement schemes in any part of the territory for peasant and yeoman farmers. Unless these new African farmers, under settlement schemes, are assured of continuity and security of title it is unlikely that any will take up land which will be offered by the Settlement Board. Security of title to land is an essential prerequisite to confidence and to renewed investment and the full use and settlement of the land; this, of course, is a problem not confined to one race only, nor only to agricultural titles. As a result of land consolidation under the Swynnerton Plan there are already over 145,000 African farmers with registered titles. Outside the Coast there are over 11,000 agricultural titles held mostly by non-Africans and over 17,000 residential, commercial and industrial titles spread among all races. At the Coast registered titles exceed 16,000. If confidence is to be won and maintained, all these must be fully secure.
Her Majesty's Government have now completed their examination of methods of ensuring this security both up to and after independence. Detailed provisions

863
designed for the protection of all rights, including rights in property, have now been included in the new Constitution. The results of this study will also be taken into account in any further discussions on further constitutional advance, since the continued protection of fundamental rights, including rights in property, will inevitably be an essential part of those discussions. Indeed, such protection for all individuals without regard to race, tribe or religion follows naturally from the general acceptance of the right of all to stay and take part, without fear of discrimination or victimisation, in the public and economic life of the country. Her Majesty's Government consider it is their duty to promote the general acceptance of these rights.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, we on this side of the House welcome the statement by the noble Earl the Minister of State which gives a guaranteed security of tenure to farmers of all races in Kenya, and we welcome it particularly because it will apply both before and after independence. We hope that this will reassure many farmers, particularly those European farmers in the White Highlands, as they are called, in Kenya, whose presence contributes very much to the prosperity of Kenya and who we all hope will stay on whatever political changes may take place in that country.
I should like to ask the noble Earl two questions. One is this: is he satisfied that the provisions of the Constitution, with this amendment, are such that this guarantee cannot easily be altered? Because after independence the then Government will clearly be able to amend the Constitution. The second question I would ask the noble Earl is about the African farmers. It is clearly essential that African farmers should take their fair share in the agricultural development of the country, and particularly take advantage of the opportunity which is being given them to take farms in the White Highlands, which provide the best agricultural holdings. Can the noble Earl say what advantage has been taken up till now of the resettlement scheme by Africans, and whether in his view this guarantee will encourage a much larger number of Africans to take advantage of the resettlement scheme?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am sure we all welcome the remarks of the noble Earl. He asked me two questions which, if I may say so, are both very apposite to the issue. Of course, once a country is independent it is in a position, by the very nature of the term, to do what it may wish in regard to its Constitution. But we have studied very carefully the question of the degree to which, for example, clauses on human rights can be entrenched in the Constitution, and it is our determination that they shall be very strongly entrenched. It is our thought that when one reaches the stage of final constitutional discussions on independence, those with whom we are discussing will not only pay lip service but clearly wish that such terms shall be entrenched in the Constitution, and it is certainly our purpose to ensure that that is done in the most effective way.
On the second question the noble Earl raises, I would say that the scheme for the settlement of African farmers, both yeoman farmers and peasant farmers, is at the moment in its pilot stage. These things are difficult to work out. We are at this moment having the assistance of the World Bank in going into the larger scheme, which it is envisaged will cost some £9 million over the next three years. At this stage, therefore, it is too early to say how things are going because we have only embarked on the pilot scheme. But I would say this: I feel sure that security of title, as it has been outlined, will be of assistance by encouraging them to come in.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that statement and commending the Government for their enlightened proposals as outlined by him, may I ask him whether he, or the Government, will take steps to enlighten public opinion in Kenya on the necessity of the permanence of these titles? Because, as we all know, without permanent titles there can be no agricultural development in any country. That is so in Kenya as elsewhere. Will he therefore do that as a matter of urgency, because only last week, as your Lordships know, one prominent politician in Kenya cast grave doubt on whether the validity of these titles was going to subsist after independence.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am heartily in agreement with the noble Lord on the importance of recognition by the people of Kenya that this is an essential part of their continued development and prosperity. I assure him that we and the Kenya Government—who, I know, will support us in this—will do all we can to bring it home to the people of Kenya.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL [H.L.]
3 51 pm.
House again in Committee.
Debate on Amendment No. 128 resumed.
LORD AMWELL: I rise to support the Amendment of Lord Stonham because I feel that it would be a great mistake to put upon the retailer the onus in regard to such things as evaporation and so forth. It is perfectly unworkable and unfair. I speak from personal experience. In my younger days I was for eleven years behind the counter, and I know the kind of dodges to which we had to resort in order to sustain a balance in regard to this particular question of evaporation which is affected by the atmosphere and humidity, or whatever it might be, of the shop itself, apart from any other considerations.
I was employed on the retail side of the tobacco industry. In those days the greater proportion of tobaccos were sold in bulk and not in packages. Of course, they evaporated rapidly, especially in wintertime when there was a lot of gas light—in those days there was not much electricity—and a lot of heat. So we sprayed the tubs of tobacco and used all sorts of other devices—even putting raw vegetables in among the loose tobacco to keep it moist. I fear that if the onus is put upon the retailer all sorts of unfair and unreasonable devices will be resorted to because of the un workability of the alternative. I hope that the Committee will accept this Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: I have listened with great interest to the two speeches that have been made, and, as I always do. with great attention to what Lord Stonham said. It seems to me that there is one difficulty if the net weight on packing includes, as he says, the weight of
866
some cellular matter, some salts and water, and immediately after the packing is complete evaporation starts and continues all the time until the contents of the package undergo some other process. Let us take the case of sprouts. The sprouts come into the shops. They are evaporating quickly and, after they have been a long time in the shop, they have evaporated considerably. I submit to the noble Lord that there is a great difference between stale sprouts and fresh sprouts, and that at any rate if the weight has to be made up the purchaser gets more cellular matter and more salts, even if the goods are stale. There is a great deal of difference between stale sprouts and fresh sprouts.
LORD STONHAM: Would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? Of course he is right, but in the case of sprouts the matter may be quite different. Sprouts would not go on losing weight permanently because, by the fourth day, they would be thrown away. We are only really considering relative weights as between 24 hours, 48 hours and 72 hours. Of course they would be stale, and they would be of less worth or unsaleable. Pre-packed sprouts would be quite fresh and saleable, but the retailer would be committing an offence if he sold them as being 1 lb. and they were in fact 14 oz.
LORD SALTOUN: That is what one hopes would happen, but I am not sure that it always does happen. The noble Lord, Lord Amwell, mentioned tobacco. I bought tobacco in those days, and I always put water with it to prevent it from deteriorating and becoming dust.
LORD OGMORE: I have listened with interest to this debate, and I must say that I have been rather concerned at two things said by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, one of them supported by the noble Lord, Lord Amwell. The first is the fact that probably this proposition is not practicable at all. The only way you can deal with this matter is in regard to the weight at the time the product is packed. If it is not a practical suggestion in the Bill, then I think the Government ought to go into it most carefully. I support the view of Lord Stonham. It seems to me, from what has been said, that his is the only practical course. The other point is equally important. Here I speak purely as a

867
consumer of soft fruit, and not in any way as a packer or processor. What concerns me is the thought that this fruit might be dipped in water and that some foreign bodies may be introduced. That is rather disturbing. First of all, it detracts immediately from any safeguard the public has as to weight, which is the main object of this Bill; and secondly—
LORD AMWELI: May I correct the noble Lord upon that matter? I did not say that the foreign bodies were incorporated in the tobacco. The raw vegetables were put in to keep the tobacco moist as time went on. They certainly were not incorporated.
LORD OGMORE: I take it that the purpose was the same—to keep the tobacco fresh and to introduce moisture into it which was not otherwise there. The point I am making is that this water which is being introduced may not be at all clean; it may be dirty water. There is the point of view of health. I can imagine that in some shop establishments late at night there might not be any great regard for cleanliness. Soft fruit is often not boiled or cooked in any way before it is eaten, and I would suggest that that is another point which the Minister might consider. It concerns the consuming public very much, and I think it has not been raised before during the progress of this debate.
THE MARQUESS OF AILSA: I, too, have listened with great interest to all that has been said on this subject. As some of your Lordships may know, I have some experience in this matter and I agree with all that Lord Stonham has had to say, except with regard to one aspect. He has spoken from the point of view of pre-packing and, in his opinion, the net weight should be that at the time of packing. That is all very nice for the self-service stores and supermarkets, but not all vegetables are sold through that kind of store. There is still the person who obtains his vegetables from the local vegetable market and retails them across the counter.
LORD STONHAM: In that case there is no difficulty at all; you will get net weight just as happens now.
THE MARQUESS OF AILSA: I agree that you get net weight; but there is a subtle difference about pre-packed net weight. A customer may go into a supermarket and, if the noble Lord's Amendment is agreed to, buy a pre-packed package of sprouts, taking 1 lb. as the weight, but in fact, through evaporation, that weight is now only 14 oz. If he goes to the shop across the street and buys from the retailer at net weight he is getting the 16 oz. Yet he is paying, one presumes, the 1 lb. price for the 14 oz. and it causes discrepancy at this point. The only suggestion I can make to alleviate that is for the net weight at the time of packing and the date of packing also to be included, which would give the customer some idea of the amount of deterioration to expect, and what he was purchasing.
4.0 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Lord Stonham has already announced that this is the point at which he makes his stand on what is undoubtedly the main difference between us; and in discussing the Amendment he has chosen I must point out that the joint effect of these Amendments would be to require the many fresh fruits and vegetables listed in paragraph 3 of this Part of the Schedule, when sold loose by retail, to be sold by net weight only, except for the larger fruits and vegetables—here called "countable produce "—which could be sold by number also. The Amendments clearly are also designed to require these fruits and vegetables, when pre-packed, to be marked with their net weight at the time of packing, again with the alternative of marking pre-packed countable produce with its number.
There was what appeared to me to be a small irrelevance in what the noble Lord. Lord Stonham, said. He seemed to assume that the Bill required pre-packed fruit and vegetables to be marked with their weight, but in fact it does not do this, provided that the weight of the containers is within defined limits. All that is required is for the retailer to make the weight known to his customer. In any case, I find it difficult to visualise that an obligation to sell at retail by net weight could be satisfactorily complied with by the marking of weights which might no longer be correct at the time

869
of sale; and according to the noble Lord, they would not be. On the substance of the proposals, Her Majesty's Government feel that they would be unsatisfactory in respect of both the sale of loose articles and the sale of pre-packs.
As regards loose sales it seems essential to allow the retailer, as the present drafting of the Bill does, to weigh the goods in at least a lightweight paper bag. It would be unhygienic and detrimental to their quality to require, say, soft fruits or peaches to be weighed on the machine without a protective paper bag—the same machine that might also have to be used for weighing onions or leeks, again without a paper bag.
LORD STONHAM: Onions, leeks and peaches can in any case be sold as countable produce and would not have to be weighed.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I mentioned those as examples. They can be sold as countable produce but also by weight. As regards pre-packed sales, the Government cannot accept that the marking of the weight when packed is a satisfactory protection to the consumer. Many of these articles are highly evaporable, and lose a good deal of weight during distribution. Also, the soft fruits particularly need air to breathe, and are thus normally packed in open-topped punnets, from which anyone along the line of distribution can help himself to a strawberry or two if he wishes. It would be a curious form of protection which left the consumer with the problem of assessing the extent to which the weight of the goods might have diminished since the time of packing, either from natural causes or from pilferage. It would also be a form of protection which would pose a difficult enough problem for the inspectors who had to enforce it in respect of home packed produce; and it could not be enforced at all in respect of imported produce which had been prepacked and marked overseas.
It would indeed be an odd form of consumer protection which prevented the ordinary greengrocer from including the weight of a ¼ ounce paper bag in the pound of fruit or vegetables he is selling loose, so as to keep his scales clean, while allowing the prepacker to offer as 1 lb. goods which weighed much less than 15¾ ounces by the time they reached
870
the consumer. It should be noted that the ordinary retailer is selling by the weight at the time of sale, not the weight that the produce may have had some time before when it was harvested. To make a distinction between loose and pre-packed sales would prevent the consumer from making an effective comparison between the two.
As drafted, and subject to the prescribed container allowances, the Bill will give the public the right to know the weight of the produce at the time at which it is sold to them. This is the weight in which the buyer is most interested; and the Government believe that this is the point on which to concentrate in those cases where the Bill is dealing with highly evaporable pre-packed articles which the packer cannot reasonably be required to mark in the ordinary way. I repeat: this is the point at issue between us. I think the point on which to concentrate is that the public should have the right to know the weight of the product at the time at which it is sold to them.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Of course, everybody wishes to have the most desirable protection possible for the consumer; but the customer also likes service; and it is the great success of the self-service organisations in the last five years that has led to almost a revolution in retail distribution. The whole question is whether they can give that kind of service at the same kind of price if they are not to be able to gain by having fewer assistants working in that type of store than would normally be applied per £1 of sales in a small private shop. That is the only way in which they can make it pay. I do not think Her Majesty's Government have really fully considered the objective in this. We want to give the consumer a square deal. We want to ensure a practical way of doing business where the customer expects to find wrapped goods from which he or she can select, with self-service; and Her Majesty's Government are making no attempt to meet that.
From what the noble Lord the Minister has said I see that Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to give way on this Amendment, and therefore the only course is to go to a Division on it, at

871
this time, so that when the matter comes to another place it can be considered again and proper attention can be given to what are the future issues of the trade.
4.17 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in paragraph 4 (c), to leave out "six" and insert "eight" [articles]. The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 130, standing in my name and the names of my noble friends. The Government in this pant of the Bill have very wisely excluded from the duty to mark the contents on the container those packages of vegetables or fruit containing not more than six articles in cases where the package is such that the articles can be clearly seen by the purchaser. That is very welcome and very sensible. But in these transparent packages the number of the contents can be easily assessed up to a total of eight. We feel that it is highly desirable that the permitted number should be increased from six to eight.
There are a number of reasons for this view. A strong one is that tomatoes, which are one of the most popular of
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 49.

CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Henderson, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Killearn, L.

Rea, L.

Amwell, L.

Lambert, V.

Shackleton, L.

Auckland, L.

Latham, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lawson, L.

Silkin, L.

Chorley, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Stonham, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Meston, L.

Taylor, L.

Crook, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Uvedale of North End, L

Faringdon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Grantchester, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Freyberg, L.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Ailwyn, L.

Geddes, L.

Pender, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Goschen, V.

Rank, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Rathcavan, L.

Bathurst, E.

Hampton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Bossom, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Just, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Kilmuir, V.(L. Chancellor.)

St. Oswald, L.

Carrington, L.

Leconfield, L.

Salisbury, M.

Cholmondeley, M.

Mancroft, L.

Saltoun, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Margesson, V.

Somers, L.

Davidson, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Spens, L.

Derwent, L.

Merrivale, L.

Teviot, L.

Digby, L.

Mills, L.

Teynham, L.

Dundee, E.

Milverton, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Dynevor, L.

Morley, E.

Winterton, E.

Elton, L.

Newall, L.

Wolverton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

these packs in transparent containers, usually weigh eight fruits to the pound in the most popular size when graded. If a marking or ticket is required with packs of eight but not with packs of six tomatoes, the tendency will be for an approximate quantity of three-quarters of a pound to be packed. This might well mislead the housewife, because with six articles in it there will be no need to put a count on them because they will be seen, and there will be no need to weigh or mark with the weight because they are countable produce. Therefore, it is in the interests of the housewife and of the trade that the number of eight should be permitted.
Then, again, in the case of many types of countable produce, particularly dessert apples and oranges, as well as tomatoes, with the type of pack which is usually employed the fruits can be set out in a single row or double row—two fours or straight along—and it is very easy, therefore, to assess at a glance with eight articles (just as easy as with six) how many articles there are in a pack. I am

873
quite sure that when the Government included this provision that six articles in a transparent package will not require either a mark of the number or a mark of the weight, they did it with the object in mind of cutting out any unnecessary restriction. Therefore, since this figure of eight will, for technical reasons, he a much more suitable one—and, indeed, will avoid the possibility of three-quarters of a pound of tomatoes being sold to the housewife, giving the impression that she is getting her old pack of about a pound —I think it should be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 11, leave out ("six") and insert ("eight").—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: Containers of pre-packed fruit and vegetables range from cellophane bags and cardboard boxes to nets and other methods, and there is no guarantee that the goods will be tidily arranged so that the customer can count them at a glance. Where they are in fact jumbled together in a net, for example, six are about the most that the purchaser can be expected to size up quickly. That was the advice I received on reading the noble Lord's Amendment, hut, in order that I should feel capable of confronting him, this morning, at an early hour, I hung eight tomatoes in a bag. Perhaps I am less nimble than the noble Lord, but I did my best to look at that bag from every direction, and without taking them out of the bag, I was unable to tell whether there were seven, eight or nine tomatoes. If the noble Lord asks me to look at this again, creak though my bones will, I shall, of course, do it; but I doubt if I shall get any better view of eight tomatoes than I did this morning, and I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: The case that the noble Lord has put up does not satisfy the provisions of the paragraph. I shall have to read it to him. Paragraph 4 (c) exempts from the requirements of this Bill:
"a pre-packed collection of not more than six articles of countable produce…if the container is such that the nature and number of those articles can be clearly seen by a prospective purchaser."
It is perfectly obvious that the container which the noble Lord saw this morning
874
did not satisfy the provisions, and I do urge that, when we table an Amendment, it should be taken seriously and looked at properly. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for tramping around the markets and buying eight tomatoes, and then jumbling them up in a bag. But he should not have jumbled them up in bag; he should have put them in a container where they could all be clearly seen. I am saying to your Lordships, quite seriously, that this is a technical matter; and, if I may say so with respect, it is a matter I understand. Here we are talking about a container of a standard size which is in normal use at the present time, a transparent container, which is in fact made for eight articles such as tomatoes. All I am really asking is that, since the Government concede the principle of this—they think it is a desirable principle—they should make the number eight instead of six. But at all times the pack must satisfy the provision that the articles can be clearly seen by a prospective purchaser.
We are wholly with the Government on this matter. All we are asking is not that anybody should jumble something up in such a way that it is like a lucky dip and the customer does not know what he is getting, but that the articles should be clearly seen. With tomatoes, eight come to roughly a pound, and we want the customer to get a pound or thereabouts. That is why we ask that this change should be made. It seems perfectly reasonable, and I am astonished that the Minister is not in a position to accept it immediately.
LORD ST. OSWALD: It may well be that the noble Lord's container was better designed than mine, but the fact is that neither I nor my advisers have seen or are familiar with such a container, and the ones that they have seen do not permit of the easy counting of more than six tomatoes. Nor did the one that I examined this morning. If he can provide me with or show me one of the containers he describes, then very possibly we can meet him. Perhaps we can arrange that between us.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I still do not understand the attitude of the Government. How slow and dense they are!
LORD ST. OSWALD: I am sorry.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It still lies in the hands of the inspectors to be able to prosecute if the articles cannot be clearly seen. Do read the paragraph in your own Bill: then you would not bother with things like this. It lies with the people who have the control of the administration to decide whether it can be clearly seen or not. We say that you should increase the number to eight because there are many articles sold in containers holding eight items in them which can all be clearly seen.
LORD ST. OSWALD: We have yet to be introduced to such a container; and I assure your Lordships that we are taking this perfectly seriously.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It shows that you are legislating without any knowledge, or without a real attempt to get knowledge.
LORD STONHAM: I do not like to leave this matter here. As my noble Leader says, it is not for me to produce a container, although I can. It is surely for the Government to ask the traders to satisfy the conditions of the Bill when it becomes an Act. They will produce the containers if they are permitted to pack eight articles in them. We do not expect the noble Lord or the officials in his Department to hunt round the stores of the pre-packers to find one —will this do, or will that do? That is not part of their job. All I am asking is that the Bill be amended to permit eight articles to be packed where the contents can be clearly seen. It is then up to the industry to provide the packages. I am telling the noble Lord that, from the standpoint of the purchaser and of the housewife, this is a desirable Amendment. It is not our business to find a container, although I will do it, of course. That is not the point: the point is that we are asking for an Amendment of the Bill: the industry will do the rest. I do not want to divide on a point like this, but I hope the noble Lord will be able to say that he will give the closest consideration to this point, and not concern himself with whether or not he can find a container.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I have already said that I will give consideration to it,
876
and I have already said why, until that consideration has been given, we cannot accept it at the moment.
LORD STONHAM: On that understanding from the noble Lord, that he will give it that consideration, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.28 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: The Bill as it stands at present exempts bunched carrots from its provisions. Bunched carrots are usually those little, sweet and succulent ones that we get in the spring. They are small ones and are bunched up; and, for obvious reasons which we wholly support, they are exempted from the provisions requiring them either to be counted or weighed or numbered. But, for exactly the same reasons, bunched beetroots and bunched turnips are also sold in that way, and since bunched carrots are exempted we feel that bunched beetroots and bunched turnips (which are again the small ones bunched together by their stalks or leaves), should also be included there and should be added to subsection (d) of paragraph 4. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 16, at end insert ("bunched beetroots and hunched turnips").—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: The term "bunched carrots" is a trade term describing young carrots, I understand, tied together by their foliage. I am happy to say that, in the matter of bunched beetroots and bunched turnips, the noble Lord and I are in complete harmony, and I accept his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule (continued):
PART VIII
Miscellaneous foods to be sold by or marked with net weight and to be pre-packed only in fixed quantities
1. This Part of this Schedule applies to the following foods, that is to say—

(a)cereal breakfast foods in flake form, other than cereal biscuit breakfast foods;

2. Subject to paragraph 3 of this Part of this Schedule, goods to which this Part of this Schedule applies—

877

(a)unless pre-packed, shall be sold by retail only by net weight;

(b)shall be pre-packed only—

(i) in one of the following quantities by net weight, that is to say, two, four, eight or twelve ounces, one pound, one and a half pounds, or a multiple of one pound; and

(ii) in a container marked with an indication of quantity by net weight.

4.30 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in paragraph 1 (a), to leave out all words after "breakfast foods". The noble Lord said: In face of the previous Amendment, I rise with renewed hope. I beg to move Amendment No. 132, and, with the permission of the Committee, perhaps it will be convenient if I also speak to Amendment No. 145. Both Amendments deal with cereal breakfast foods.
Paragraph 1 of Part VIII of the Fifth Schedule applies to various goods, such as cereal breakfast foods in flake form, other than cereal biscuit breakfast foods. The articles included in paragraph I are to be sold by net weight and are to be pre-packed in fixed quantities. I am not quite sure why the Government have included the words "in flake form". As the Government must be aware, there is now a large and increasing range of breakfast cereal foods, and to my knowledge there is only one well-known brand which is in flake form. However, there are many other types of break fast foods which are not biscuit and which are not flake, and my noble friends feel that this type should not be excluded from the provisions of this Bill. We feel that all breakfast foods, irrespective of their presentation, should be included in the Bill, and should be sold by net weight and pre-packed in fixed quantities.
Amendment No. 145 refers to the case where cereal breakfast foods in biscuit form must be sold by number. I have in mind shredded wheat. I believe that is included in the definition of "biscuit foods". I do not see any reason why those should not be sold by net weight, and therefore, in speaking to my second Amendment, I would point out that what I want to achieve is to remove from the Bill the requirement for these to be sold by number. They should be in the provisions of Part VIII so that they are sold by net weight. I do not think there is
878
any difficulty here. It gives the consumer some protection, because, unlike the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Stonham that referred to biscuit foods sold by sight or by number, the consumer will not be able to have sight of them when they are in a carton. The manufacturers of the biscuit type of cereal could well reduce the size of the biscuit without the public being aware that they were buying an article which was lower in weight than it should be. Therefore I submit to the Committee that, under Part VIII of this Bill, we should include cereal breakfast foods of all categories, and that all these should be sold by net weight and pre-packed in fixed quantities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 46, leave out all words after breakfast foods."—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD HAWKE: The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has spotted the same flaw in the Bill which I noticed and which I sought to remedy by the next Amendment on the Order Paper. I hope the Government will be able to accept something in the form of the Amendment that the noble Lord has down, and include in the Bill cereal foods in addition to flakes, which I suppose could be held to mean all those things known as "crispies" of various sorts. I agree that shredded wheat is hardly a flake or a biscuit, and grape nuts definitely seem to me to be neither of the two.
4.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Part VIII of the Schedule, as it is now drafted, requires only those pre-packed breakfast foods which are in flake form to be sold or marked with their net weight and to be pre-packed in certain specified quantities. The Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Hawke, to leave out "in flake form", would apply these requirements to all cereals other than those in biscuit form. Thus my noble friend would bring in such cereals as sugarised puffs and the bran varieties. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, goes further still: it would apply this requirement to all breakfast cereals, including those in biscuit form.
I should just like to say a word about the biscuit form cereals first, because I think there are special arguments against requiring cereal breakfast foods in biscuit form to be pre-packed in specified

879
quantities. These edible articles—whatever you call them—are often of a highly friable and fragile nature, and in the process of modern, high-speed packing, which saves so much time and which often has the effect of enabling the article to be sold at a lower price, small bits sometimes crumble off, and it is impossible for the packer to guarantee the actual weight which gets into the packet without slowing up his machinery to an extent that might price these goods out of the market. Therefore, the present practice of requiring them merely to be marked with their number, which Part XI of this Schedule proposes to continue and from which the noble Lord says he is proposing to omit these articles, does at least give the purchaser an indication of the number of breakfast helpings he can rely on the package to give him.
With regard to the other enlargements which would be brought, both by my noble friend Lord Hawke and by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, into the present context, I would point out that it is only cereals in flake form which have traditionally come to be packed to a specified range of weights and which the consumer has accordingly come to expect in those weights. When you come to cereals in shredded form, like bran, or in puffed or sugarised form, they have not been traditionally sold in specified weights. If we were to require them to be sold in this way, it might again put up costs as against the consumer. For example, there are some firms who use standard packs for a wide range of these foods, and the packs are designed, at the half-pound mark, to take exactly half a pound of flakes; but they might hold in fact 18 oz. of the bran varieties and 9½ oz. of the puffed rice varieties, to name only two out of a large number of different varieties which are sold. If all these varieties had to be pre-packed to specified weights, there would have to be a different-sized container for each of them at each specified weight. The consumers, many of whom change from one variety to another, could not tell at a glance the quantity they were getting or the size of the packet, as one can in the case of sugar and tea.
I would submit to your Lordships—and it is a consideration which applies to a number of other Amendments,
880
which we shall soon come to on the Paper—that the requirement to pre-pack in specified weights is one which is used only sparingly in this Bill. I would suggest to your Lordships that it is a requirement which ought to be used very sparingly, and that we ought not to add to it without strong reasons. I say this because there is always the danger that such a step will react to the disadvantage of the consumer by preventing the packer from achieving economies in production or utilising standard-sized packs for a variety of goods of different densities.
LORD SHEPHERD: I thank the noble Earl for his full reply. If I understand him aright, it is more for technical reasons than on principle that the Government do not accept my Amendment. I can see the noble Earl's point that breakfast cereals should be in a container of specified size, but I think that he would agree that, even if cereals require boxes of a certain size, the net weight should be clearly stamped on the box. If the noble Lord will consider whether all breakfast foods should be clearly stamped with the net weight, I think we shall have gone some way towards giving consumer protection.
I forgot to raise another point when I spoke earlier. Does the net weight include the free gifts which some companies are distributing as inducements to children to demand of their mothers that they should have that brand of cereal at the breakfast table. Are these small plastic toys treated in the same way as wrapper allowance and included in the net weight? If we are going to have these goods clearly stamped, as we hope we shall, I hope that it will not include the weight of any free gifts given to the purchaser. I beg the noble Earl to look at this matter again. All these cereals should be stamped with the net weight and there should be no differentiation between flakes and biscuits.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: One of the noble Earl's arguments struck me as rather difficult to understand. He talked about the biscuit type of breakfast food which is friable—that is, liable to crumble—and which for that reason is easier to package by number than by weight. The fact that the pieces of biscuit have crumbled in the course of packing and transport from the factory makes

881
it all the more important that the housewife should know how much she is getting. It is no good getting six helpings of breakfast food if each helping is half the size it ought to be. If weight were made the factor, she would then know how much she was getting.
LORD FARINGDON: I, too, was puzzled by one of the noble Earl's arguments. He said that though foods were contained in standard packages, owing to their nature it was impossible for the housewife to know exactly how much there was of the food she was buying. Surely this is an argument against him and for the proposal that packages should be stamped.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My argument was that if they had to be sold by net weight, the result might be increased expense and delay in packing. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked about breakfast foods being marked with their net weight. Biscuits have to be marked by their number, not weight, but other breakfast foods have to be marked with their net weight. I will look into the point about gifts in packages and consider how it bears on the general question.
LORD HAWKE: I am satisfied by my noble friend's explanation. I had overlooked the fact that these foods would have to be packed in specified weights. Therefore I think that the arguments he used about packing makes the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and myself rather unnecessary.
LORD SHEPHERD: On condition that the noble Earl will look at this matter, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: I trust that your Lordships will not allow yourselves to be influenced against this Amendment and No. 136 which, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to take with it, since they cover exactly the same point. I can well understand noble Lords not feeling amiably disposed towards powdered tea or powdered coffee. I confess that I do not, but none the less I suggest that they should be included in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 1, which applies this part of the Schedule to tea, cocoa and cocoa powder,
882
chocolate powder, and coffee, including coffee beans, ground coffee and mixtures of coffee and chicory. I think it is fairly clear that powdered tea and powdered coffee should also be included. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 1, after ("tea") insert ("(including powdered extracts of tea)").—(Lord Faringdon.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: As the noble Lord has pointed out the arguments for these two Amendments are very much the same, on both sides. As I submitted to your Lordships on the last Amendment, I would impress on you that the requirement to pre-pack in standard quantities is one that should be applied sparingly, and only when there are strong practical reasons for it from the point of view of consumer protection. Since the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926, and indeed since the days of the Hodgson Committee, pre-packaging has grown tremendously and has offered the public an ever-increasing range of foodstuffs in hygienic and convenient containers, which one did not have to anything like the same extent, even nine years ago. An important factor in securing economies in the cost of prepackaging is the freedom to use standard-sized containers, which can all pass through the same packing machines without adjustment and can be used for a variety of goods. But as most goods will tend to differ somewhat from each other in density, the widespread application of the requirement to pre-pack in standard weights articles which do not come under Part VIII would either destroy the economic advantages of standard-sized containers—which means that the public ultimately have to pay more—or else would lead to some containers being only partially filled, which is certain to arouse the public's suspicion that they are being misled or cheated. Although the Hodgson Committee recommended that rather more goods should be pre-packed in specified weights than the Bill in fact requires, they drew special attention to the economies which can he achieved by the standardisation of container sizes, and stressed that the Board of Trade should keep this aspect in mind in considering any further extension of this particular requirement about pre-packing.

883
The ordinary varieties of tea and coffee (not powder) have been required to be pre-packed in specified quantities for a long time since the 1926 Act. The public have undoubtedly come to expect them to be packed in the standard quantities, and it would not be a good thing if this requirement were now relaxed. Accordingly, this part of the Schedule preserves this requirement for ordinary tea and coffee. The powdered varieties have never had to be packed in standard quantities, and those members of the public who want to check the quantity are accustomed to looking at the marking on the container. Moreover, tea and certain kinds of coffee are still pre-packed in specialised paper packets; and since there is little question of these packets being used for other goods of differing densities, the requirement to pack in standard weights does not impose extra costs on the trade. But when we came to powdered extracts of tea and coffee, as the noble Lord knows, they are subject to dehydration, to a certain extent, in being powdered and, therefore, are very apt to attract moisture; and for that reason they are nearly always pre-packed in strong, rigid containers which are designed to keep out the air. It is precisely in this field of rigid containers that the economies of standard sizes can best be achieved by the pre-packaging industries and where a requirement for standard weights can most affect costs and can, in the long run, work to the disadvantage of the public.
LORD FARINGDON: I think the noble Earl has made a good case, so far as it goes, but I find myself rather puzzled. Why do the advantages or disadvantages of a particular type of pre-packing apply to tea powder and/or coffee powder, whereas they do not apply to cocoa powder or chocolate powder, which apparently are already on the list and are included in the Bill? I do not want to insist, but I cannot help feeling that the noble Earl may have been misguided on this matter. If, indeed, these other things can be packed in powder form, I can think of no good reason why tea and coffee should not also be packed with the net weight stamped on the outside of the package. However, if the noble Earl does not feel this is some-
884
thing which he should take back I do not insist on this Amendment. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Latham has anything to say about it.
LORD LATHAM: I should like to say a few words. The question here is whether we should have standardisation of quantity or standardisation of container; and so far as the language of the Bill is concerned, the container seems to have won. Is there not another element in the objections put forward by the trade in this connection—namely, that they are ill-disposed towards having standard containers because they want to have an element of competition in quantity? The noble Earl referred to the comments of the Hodgson Committee; but having discussed the manufacturing difficulties, they went on to say:
"We recommend, however, that at the end of five years the Board of Trade should, in consultation with associations representing housewives, retailers and manufacturers, review the extent to which standardisation has taken place to decide what additional foods and household commodities normally retailed in rigid containers should, in the absence of any progress towards standardisation, be brought within this requirement."
Can the noble Earl say whether consultations have taken place with housewives, or associations representing housewives, retailers and manufacturers on this? This is a question as to whether the consumer is prepared to pay a slight extra cost arising from a multiplicity of manufacture, instead of the line manufacture of mass production, in order to have the benefit of the guarantee of weight by standard quantities. I should be glad if the noble Earl will answer the points I have made in connection with the comments of the Hodgson Committee.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Since the Hodgson Committee reported there have been great new developments in the prepackaging industry. The extent to which pre-packing is now undertaken brings to the retail trade and to consumers conveniences which are much more universal now than formerly. I mentioned in my remarks that the Hodgson Committee recommended that rather more goods should be pre-packed in specified weights than the Bill requires. But I also mentioned that they drew special attention to the economies which can be achieved by the

885
standardisation of container sizes, and stressed that the Board of Trade should keep this aspect in mind in considering any further extension of this particular requirement.
With regard to the consumer being willing to pay more in order that goods should be packed in specified weights, we have no evidence that consumers are being deceived in regard to these commodities, and I think that to require powdered tea and powdered coffee to be pre-packed only in specified weights would mean a change in the packing lines of various brands which offer instant coffee in jars marked as containing 6 oz. net—6 oz. is not a specified weight. This is the sort of commodity where the position might be kept under review, but I think it would be a mistake to put it into this Schedule.
LORD FARINGDON: I cannot say that I am wholly satisfied, but, with your Lordships' permission, I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.59 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to add to paragraph 1:
"() butter, compound cooking fat, dripping, lard, margarine, shredded suet arid any mixture of butter and margarine;
() dried fruits of any one or more of the follow-leg descriptions, that is to say, apples (including dried apple rings), apricots, currants, dates, figs, muscatels, nectarines, peaches, pears (including dried pear rings), prunes, raisins and sultanas;
() dried fruit salad;
() dried vegetables of any of the following descriptions, that is to say, beans, lentils and peas (including split peas);
() barley kernels, pearl barley, rice (including ground rice and rice flakes), sago, semolina and tapioca;
() flour or bean, maize, oats, pea, potato, rice, rye, bean or wheat;
() flour products of any of the following descriptions, that is to say—

(i) cake flour, including cake mixtures and sponge mixtures;

(ii) cornflour, including blancmange powders and custard powders;

(iii) macaroni and similar products;

(iv) self-raising flour;

() oatflakes, oatmeals and rolled oats;
() biscuits".
The noble Lord said: In moving this formidable-looking Amendment, I hope that the Committee will not feel that it is as difficult as it looks. Its purpose is
886
to simplify the Bill. And the Bill is really becoming so complicated that I am bound to say that arty trader who is dealing with a variety of products, and has to comply with all kinds of different conditions as to packing, weights and so on, is going to find himself in considerable difficulty, as will the consumer who is seeking to see whether he or she is getting a fair deal in accordance with the Bill.
Here we have a number of different parts of the Fifth Schedule each dealing with commodities of an analogous character and requiring conditions of packaging which are slightly different. It seemed to me that it would be desirable to put them all under the same heading in one Part and, if necessary, make slight modifications so as to secure that the requirements of packing are applicable to all the products dealt with in the Bill. Incidentally, it will have the advantage, if the noble Earl is disposed to accept the Amendment, of making it unnecessary for me to move Amendments Nos. 142 and 143, to delete Parts IX and X. My broad case is that if all these products which I have enumerated were included in one Part, possibly with Part VIII modified appropriately, it would simplify the Bill. It would simplify the onerous burden being put upon the producer, and I think it would simplify it from the point of view of the consumer. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 9, at end insert the said subparagraphs.—(Lord Silkin)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for seeking to simplify the Bill, as indeed I should be grateful to anyone else who would seek to simplify it still further. This Amendment would most certainly produce a number of simplifications. It is concerned with three Parts of the Schedule. It shifts commodities from Parts IX and X into Part VIII. Perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me if, in replying to it, I anticipate some of the things he may wish to say in connection with his Amendment to leave out Parts IX and X, and also possibly on the next two Amendments Nos. 138 and 139. Because it seems to me that, at any rate in the way I look at it, the answer which I feel I ought to make to the noble Lord's Amendment embraces these other Amendments at the same time.

887
These Amendments would do four things. First of all, they would transfer the foods in Part IX into Parr VIII and, so far as that is concerned, there is only a small change made, because foods in Parts VIII and IX already have one common factor—that they are to be pre-packed in fixed quantities. Therefore the only difference the noble Lord would make here would be that, instead of being sold or marked with net weight or gross weight, they must be sold or marked with net weight. That is one thing that occurs. Then it transfers the food at present in Part X of the Schedule into Part VIII, which makes rather wider changes, because the foods in Part X are foods to be sold by or marked with net weight or gross weight, but not pre-packed in fixed quantities. If the Amendment were to be accepted, they would then have to be sold only by net weight and pre-packed in fixed quantities. Then the noble Lord is proposing in a later Amendment—to which the arguments, in my submission, are the same—to add biscuits to the list of foods in Part VIII. In his next Amendment, No. 138, the noble Lord seeks to empower the Board of Trade to add further foods to, or delete foods from, those listed in Part VIII by means of a statutory instrument which would be subject to the annulment procedure—that is, the Negative Resolution procedure.
The arguments on each of these four points should, I think, be treated separately. The foods which are to be transferred from Part IX change their status only in respect of being sold by net weight only. These are butter, margarine and cooking fats. Although nowadays they are not often sold loose in the shops, some trade is still conducted in that way, and Part IX follows the existing law in allowing the shopkeeper to include in the weighing the weight of a sheet of greaseproof paper. Without that allowance, he would be compelled to carry the portions of butter and other fats to the weighing machine without any protective covering, weigh them directly on the weighing pan without anything, underneath them, and then pick them up by hand in order to wrap them up, which would be inconvenient and not very clean.
The maximum weight of the wrapper in which, under Part IX, we allow these
888
goods to be weighed, is the equivalent, as I pointed out to your Lordships on an earlier Amendment yesterday, of just under 2 per cent. of the total weight at the ½ lb. mark and about 1 per cent. at the 1 lb. mark. As I argued on a previous Amendment, we think that this permitted slight underweight on the foods themselves is a small price to pay for hygienic handling, as I think the Hodgson Committee acknowledged. And although the Committee did not favour extending the wrapper allowance to the goods when pre-packed in the factory, the Government do not feel they should introduce any form of discrimination between shop packing and factory packing in this matter.
Now let us come to Part X. Two changes are proposed here. The goods listed in Part X are to be sold and marked with net weight only, instead of the weight of a light bag or similar container to be taken into account in their weight and marking. As with butter and fats in Part IX, these goods in Part X, particularly the dried fruits, vegetables and grains, are still sold loose in certain areas in the shops, and here again it is recognised in the existing law that it would be inconvenient to prevent the shopkeeper from putting them into a paper bag for the purpose of weighing. The maximum weight of the container in which Part X would allow these goods to be weighed is the equivalent of a little over 3 per cent. of the total weight at the ½ lb. mark and just over 1½ per cent. at the 1 lb. mark. For these foods, also, the Hodgson Committee recognised the justification for a container allowance when they are weighed in the shops, and here again the Government do not think it would be right to introduce discrimination between shop packing and factory packing, so far as this allowance is concerned.
The other effect of taking these Part X goods and putting them into Part VIII would be to require them to be made up in specified weights only. That point I have discussed a good deal on the last two Amendments, and I will not repeat what I said. But we feel that the arguments which I advanced to your Lordships on the previous Amendments hold good here, too, and that we ought not to require goods to be sold only in specified weights unless there are strong and special reasons for doing so. There are

889
some of the dried vegetable and grain products in this Part which have been required to be packed in specified weights since 1926, and some of the dried fruits since 1949. But the conditions of trade are changing, and these foods are coming more and more to be packed in cardboard cartons rather than in the old blue paper bags and the economic standardisation of the sizes of these cartons which can be used for a variety of these goods with different densities will be prevented, or severely handicappd, if the requirement to pack in specified weights is not relaxed.
The third main effect of the Amendment would be to require biscuits to be packed in specified weights instead of just being marked with their weight. Here again, the Hodgson Committee saw the unreasonableness of this. Within a packet of biscuits the weight of one biscuit can be quite an appreciable percentage of the total, and there can be no guarantee that any given whole number of biscuits will ever come out precisely at the specified weights of 4, 8, 12 oz. and so on.
Finally, the noble Lord proposes to give to the Board of Trade power to bring further foodstuffs within, or to exempt foodstuffs from, the scope of Pat VIII of the Schedule, by statutory instrument, subject only to the annulment procedure. As drafted, the Bill gives the Board of Trade power to do precisely this by means of an order made under subsection (2) of Clause 22; but the procedure, as defined in subsection (2) of Clause 55, requires such orders to be preceded by consultation with interested parties. Subsection (3) requires such Orders to be laid in draft before, and to be approved by a Resolution of, each House of Parliament.
We think (and I am sure that the noble Lord will not be unsympathetic to this because we have had long discussions before on the difference between Affirmative and Negative Resolutions) that these procedures are most necessary in the case of orders which can have a profound impact on the manufacturing processes, and on the production and distribution costs, of particular industries. We shall not hesitate to use these powers where there is a convincing case for doing so in the public interest. The industries concerned should have the right to know that matters can be threshed out
890
thoroughly before the orders take effect, instead of after the possible damage has been done, as would be the case if the Negative Resolution procedure were adopted.
LORD SILKIN: The last point made by the noble Earl was an answer to an Amendment that I have not moved, but it is a perfectly good answer; and as a result of what he has said I do not now propose to move it. I accept also what he said about the other matter. If I were to press my Amendment I should be very happy to leave out "biscuits". I think it is much too detailed a matter to press this Amendment, and to try to argue in general the particular points which the noble Earl has mentioned. Having moved the Amendment, I am quite content to leave it and to ask the noble Earl whether it is possible to consider this point. I quite understand his argument that some of these goods are sold in one form and some are sold in another. When the Bill becomes law in its present form there will be great difficulty; because I cannot imagine any producer, still less any buyer, wading through these Schedules to see whether the particular commodity they are selling or buying comes within any particular Part of the Bill. Perhaps some other way could be devised, some simple Schedule in which everything could be contained with the requirements varied a little in individual cases. That would be much more likely to be observed than the Schedule as at present in the Bill. Having said that, and not asking the noble Earl to look at the matter again, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, in paragraph 2 (b) (i) of Part VIII, after "say"to insert "one". The noble Earl said: this is an Amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Hawke to which my name has been added because we have decided to accept it. The Amendment relates to Part VIII of the Fifth Schedule which requires certain foods in everyday consumption to be pre-packed to a range of specified weights only. Most of these goods have been subject Ito this requirement since the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act,

891
1926; the object is to enable the shopper to see at a glance what weights the packages contain. The range of weights specified in the Bill is 2, 4, 8 and 12 ounces, 1 lb., 1½ lb. and multiples of 1 lb.; and there is a complete exemption for pre-packs weighing less than 1 ounce.
The Bill applies this requirement, however, to certain foods for the first time, notably to jam, marmalade, honey and jelly preserves. There is a specialised trade in these goods in one ounce packs for use at children's parties, and so on, which the Bill, as at present drafted, would stop. This is not justified, since these one ounce packs could hardly be used in any way to mislead the general public. The solution is, accordingly, as the Amendment proposes, to add "1 ounce" to the range of weights to which all the goods in this Part of the Schedule are permitted to be pre-packed. I am sorry that I have to put the case instead of my noble friend. He explained to me that he would be absent for a short time but he said he would be back in the next hour.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 16, after ("say") insert ("one").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment is consequential on the previous one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 23, leave out ("one") and insert ("half an").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule (continued):
PART IX
Miscellaneous foods to be sold by or marked with net weight or gross weight and to be pre-packed only in fixed quantities
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN had given Notice of his intention to move to leave out Part IX. The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment which I withdrew, No. 137. In withdrawing it I said that I was not asking the noble Earl to give an undertaking. Nevertheless, I hope it will be possible to simplify the Parts of the Fifth Schedule, which is really a most compli-
892
cated business and will, I am sure, remain a dead letter if it is passed in its present form. I asked for no undertaking; but, nevertheless, I hope that at some stage in the future of the Bill there will be simplification of the Parts of the Fifth Schedule generally. I therefore do not move this Amendment.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved in paragraph 2 (b), leave out "sold" and insert
"weighed for the determination of the purchase price in the presence of the buyer".
The noble Lord said: Part IX having survived, my Amendment relates to the provisions of that Part, which is concerned with
"miscellaneous foods to be sold by or marked with net weight or gross weight and to be pre-packed only in fixed quantities."
The purpose of the Amendment—and, indeed, of the next Amendment—is to remove the permission for sale by gross weight and to require that all foods mentioned in the Part should be required to be sold by net weight; or, if they are sold by gross weight, that they should be weighed in the presence of the buyer for the purpose of determining the purchase price. It is of importance to mention in this connection that the Hodgson Committee gave considerable time to the consideration of this problem of net weight, gross weight, wrappings and allowances therefore. No fewer than three long paragraphs of the Report are devoted to the consideration of this matter. It is of importance to note that at least four of the foods mentioned in Part IX of the Bill are foods which the Hodgson Committee in paragraph 250 considered should not be sold by gross weight except when weighed in the presence of the purchaser as part of a retail transaction, or where pre-packed on the retail premises in which they are to be sold or offered for sale.
The Committee admit in their Report that they faced some difficulties in dealing with this matter, but they nevertheless came down definitely in favour of sale by net weight. I quoted these words yesterday and they are worth quoting again. In paragraph 251 the Committee said:
"We feel strongly that any violation of the principle of sale by net weight is, in theory at least, thoroughly undesirable".
Later in the same paragraph they say:
"We cannot countenance the hazarding over so wide a front of the principle of sale by net weight."
Then, at the end of paragraph 252 they say:
"Hence, we recommend that, in the case of these articles a wrapper allowance should be given only when they are weighed out in the presence of the purchaser as part of a retail transaction or where pre-packed on the retail premises in which they are to be sold or offered for sale."
In those circumstances, I think the case is almost unanswerable for removing this and saying that the foods specified in Part IX should be sold only by net weight except in the presence of the buyer. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 34, leave out ("sold") and insert ("weighed for the determination of the purchase price in the presence of the buyer").—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: What Part IX of the Fifth Schedule requires is that butter, margarine and cooking fats must be sold by net weight, or, if they are pre-packed, must be marked with net weight, except that they may be sold by, or marked with, gross weight provided that the weight of the container does not exceed the limits prescribed in Table A of Part XIII of this Schedule. The effect of the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has moved, would be to confine this alternative of selling by gross weight solely to the shopkeeper who was weighing these foods for sale in the presence of the buyer, and to require the pre-packer to mark them with their net weight only, whether they are pre-packed in the factory or made up by the retailer on his own premises in advance of a sale.
The noble Lord quoted paragraph 251 of the Hodgson Committee Report, of which we are of course aware, and we recognise the force of this particular recommendation. What we feel is that the permitted weights in Tables A and B of Part XIII of the Schedule are so small that even in cases of small weights they do not amount to an appreciable diminution of net weight and that the convenience which the customer derives from their employment is well
894
worth any marginal difference in the weight. I do not think the difference in the weight would often be perceptible on an indicator on the weighing machine; it probably would not be more than the thickness of the dividing line.
LORD LATHAM: With respect, may I say that the Committee did not accept that view.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: But the Committee did say in their previous paragraph, 250, in speaking of wrappers:
"The placing of such obstacles in the way of quick and accurate service would…cause grocers to discontinue using wrappers wherever possible, which, from the point of view of hygiene, would be to the detriment of the consumer."
While they point out that the factory packer really had no need of these allowances, they do not go so far as to say that the retail pre-packer should be deprived of them, which is what the noble Lord's Amendment would do. While we do not dispute, at least in the generality of cases, the validity of what the Hodgson Committee said about pre-packing at the factory, the Government do believe the most sensible and businesslike course is to apply the same provisions, including container allowances, right across the board for all transactions in these goods, so that all sectors of the trade know they stand on the same footing as each other, and in so far as these marginal weights of greaseproof paper are of importance to anyone, the consumer has a self-evident standard of comparison between the pre-packed and the unpacked commodity.
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, speaking an hour or two ago on an Amendment on which your Lordships divided, pointed out that we wore doing our best to protect the consumer, but we must also consider the benefit to the consumer which would be derived from better service, from having a system which would enable fewer assistants to be employed in the shop, and so on; and I think we must consider the extent to which retail trade has developed in these respects in the last nine years since the Report of the Hodgson Committee was published
LORD LATHAM: In the light of what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Fifth Schedule (continued):
PART X
Miscellaneous foods to be sold by or marked with net weight or gross weight
LORD LATHAM: This Amendment is put down because I understand that some doubt has been cast as to whether dates as sold in this country are dried or fresh dates. Some packers are at present arguing that such dates are, in fact, fresh. It is felt that in order to avoid any doubt in the future the item "dates" should be removed from paragraph 1 (a) and included in a new subparagraph (h). That involves Amendments Numbers 143A and 143B. I beg to move the first.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 14, leave out ("dates")—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for detecting an omission in the Bill. Part X is confined to dried dates because it was thought that Tunis dates, which are normally imported into this country in a pre-packed state, were subject to a minor form of processing before they were packed. We were leaving these dates to be caught under the general net-weight marking requirement in Part XII of this Schedule. We have recently discovered that these dates would, in fact, obtain exemption under paragraph 3 and that there would be no requirement anywhere in the Bill that they must be marked with their weight. If the noble Lord would like to withdraw his Amendment, I will put down a Government Amendment giving effect to what he proposes.
LORD LATHAM: In those circumstances, I most willingly withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LATHAM: There was another Amendment which, from a procedural point of view, had been left out, but it was to be reinstated. It deals with the heading.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I understand that there was an Amendment on the Marshalled List yesterday, but it does not appear to-day. That is because, strictly speaking, it is only an Amendment to a heading and not to the words of the Bill.
5.31 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON moved, in paragraph 2 (b) to leave out all words after "pre-packed only" and insert:

"(i) in one of the following quantities, that is to say, two, four, eight or twelve ounces, one pound, one and a half pounds, or a multiple of one pound; and

(ii) in a container marked with an indication of quantity,

being in each case quantity by net weight or, if the container does not exceed the appropriate permitted weight aforesaid, quantity either by net weight or by gross weight:"
The noble Lord said: The point of this Amendment, which I rather hope the Government may accept, is merely to continue the law as it is at the present time. It is not an innovation in any sense. Under the present legislation the foods listed in Part X of the Fifth Schedule, comprising dried fruits, cereals and similar articles, and flour and flour products, are required to be pre-packed in fixed prescribed quantities. That is the object of this Amendment. Under the Bill it would seem that this practice is no longer to be continued in respect of these particular foods. It has always been considered a great protection of the housewife that she should be able to buy pre-packed goods in prescribed quantities. It is a simple case of seeing exactly what she is getting, and to save her from being cheated. It would seem to those of us who have put down this Amendment that it takes up a matter which is at present practised and puts it into the pill, its absence therefrom being, I suggest, a retrograde step. Therefore, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Pace 69, line 39, leave out from ("only") to end of line 43 and insert the said sub-paragraphs.—(Lord Faringdon.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment would have the effect of requiring that all the foods listed in Part X of this Schedule should be pre-packed in specified quantities only. It is exactly

897
the same as the Amendment proposed some little time ago by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, supported by Lord Shackle-ton and Lord Latham, which we discussed at great length. The only slight difference is that here it would allow the weight of a light container to be taken into account in the packed weight of goods, as Part X would do as at present drafted. But the arguments against requiring these foods to be pre-packed in specified quantities are exactly the same as those which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on his previous Amendment.
LORD FARINGDON: The noble Earl has not dealt with my really basic point, which is that this Amendment seeks to re-establish the law as it is at present. As I remember it, his argument was that one did not want to pre-pack these things at certain fixed weights because it would increase the cost of production and so the articles would become more expensive. But, as in fact this has been common practice in the past, I do not think that argument can possibly apply in the present case.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I pointed out on the earlier Amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin was dealing with some foods which, under the present law, have to be sold in specified weights, and I gave the seasons. They were the growing universality of the pre-packaging industry, and the feeling that it would be more to the convenience of the public if the goods in question no longer had to be in specified weights, owing to the fact that the containers are so largely standardised nowadays.
LORD LATHAM: In his comprehensive consideration of this question on an earlier Amendment did the noble Earl have in mind the First Schedule to the Weights and Measures Act, 1926, which requires the majority of the foods now exempt to be, pre-packed in prescribed quantities? That was enacted in 1926 and, so far as one knows, the provision has worked satisfactorily. What are the reasons for departing from a provision which was made in 1926, no doubt for good reason?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: What I submitted to your Lordships in the earlier Amendment was this. I said that, admittedly, some of the dried products
898
and grain products in this Part had been required to be packed in specified weights since 1926, and some of the dried fruits since 1949. However, these foods are coming more and more to be packed in cardboard cartons rather than in the old paper bags, and the economic standardisation of the size of these cartons which can be used for a variety of these goods with different densities, Will be prevented if the requirement to be packed in specified weights is not relaxed. That is exactly the same consideration which I would submit in reply to this Amendment.
LORD ATHAM: I do not think that it does that. It has only this effect upon myself: that it increases the price we are paying to the manufacturers of containers to avoid standardisation.
LORD FARINGDON: I must say that I am far from satisfied with the noble Earl's reply in this matter. It seems to me, as I think my noble friend Lord Latham said a little earlier, that we are becoming the slaves of the package makers. Instead of fitting the packet to the amount of food, we are fixing the amount of food by how much will go into the packet. This seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse. However, if the noble Earl really is adamant on this, I suppose I shall have to ask permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendmet, by leave, withdrawn.
Fifth Schedule (continued):
PART XI
Miscellaneous foods to be marked when pre-packed with quantity by number
LORD SHEPHERD: I have already spoken to this Amendment when I was moving a previous Amendment, but I should like to say one or two further words. I was wondering whether the noble Earl would consider a further Amendment at a later stage, to paragraph 1 (a) of Part XI, whereby we could delete the word "breakfast" so that we should have, under this Part that the miscellaneous foods to be marked would include:
"(a) cereal biscuit foods;".

899
If this was possible I believe we could then have under this cover certain items which are neither bread, biscuit nor, possibly, cereals. I am thinking particularly of some of these slimming type rolls that have been put on the market, which are dubious as to what they can do for the figure, dubious in weight and, I believe, on occasion, dubious as to the numbers received in the packet. This is an increasing business and I should like to see this type of roll (some may call it biscuit) brought within this Bill, so that the package will have to state clearly the number of rolls it contains. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, leave out line 6.—(Lord Shepherd.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I should like a little time to consider the noble Lord's suggestion, which I know is put forward in a desire to improve the Bill as well as a desire to reduce our expanding circumferences.
LORD SHEPHERD: In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.43 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in paragraph (1), to add to sub-paragraph (c):
"except where fewer than seven shell eggs are ore-packed in a container in such a manner that their nature and number can be clearly seen by a prospective purchaser ".
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will be aware that Part XI of the Fifth Schedule deals with miscellaneous foods which, when pre-packed, must be marked with the quantity the package contains by number; and it includes Shell eggs. Earlier this afternoon we were discussing a part of the Bill which permits pre-packed goods, provided that the total number is not more than six, to be exempted from the provisions requiring the package to be marked with the quantity by number, if the package is such that the contents can be clearly seen by the purchaser. This Amendment proposes to give the same advantages to
900
packages of pre-packed eggs not exceeding six in number which the Bill at present gives to pre-packed vegetables and foods.
I cannot see how there can be any valid arguments against making this proposed change, because there ought not to be any differentiation between eggs and horticultural products. The noble Earl, when he comes to reply, might argue that at present pre-packed eggs are often in a container which ensures that their contents are not visible at all. I quite agree with that, and if the contents were not visible they would not satisfy the provisions of the Bill as I hope to see it amended. But there is developing in the pre-packaging industry, from those who sell eggs and desire to promote the increased sale of eggs, a package which does permit of the contents being clearly visible, and I am quite sure Her Majesty's Government would have no wish to stop that development. In the interests of the producers, and indeed of the consumers in buying a handy package, the contents of which can be clearly seen, I hope the Government will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 9, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Stonham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: We have now got to Part XI of the Bill which requires miscellaneous foods to be marked, when pre-packed, with the quantity by number. The Amendment seeks to exempt from this requirement a pre-pack containing fewer than seven eggs, if the nature and number of the eggs are clearly visible to the buyer. I see no objection to this in principle and I shall be glad to accept it. I am told that there may be one slight complication—namely, that containers holding fewer than seven eggs, while being exempt from the requirements of Part XI of the Schedule, may nevertheless fall within the requirements of Part XII, whereby they would have to be marked with the net weight or measure of their contents. I would propose, therefore, if the noble Lord would withdraw his Amendment to draft another which will guard against that.
LORD STONHAM: I am most gratified by that reply. It makes three acceptances of principle in a row, and I can only hope that our good fortune will continue. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Fifth Schedule (continued):
PART XII
Other pre-packed foods
2. Subject to paragraph 3 of this Part of this Schedule, goods to which this Part of this Schedule applies, shall he pre-packed only if the container is marked with an indication of quantity either by net weight or by capacity measurement.
3. The following shall be exempted from the requirements of this Part of this Schedule, that is to say—

(1) biscuits in a quantity of less than four ounces;

(5) fruits or vegetables of any description (including mushrooms) and coconuts, being fruits, vegetables or coconuts—

(a) in the state in which they were harvested; or

(b) in the said state apart from cleaning or trimming;

(10) soft drinks of any description in a syphon or in a quantity of less than five fluid ounces;
VISCOUNT MACKINTOSH of HALIFAX VISCOUNT MACKINTOSH of HALIFAX moved, in paragraph 2, to leave out "paragraph 3" and insert "paragraphs 3 and 4". The noble Lord said: This Amendment which stands in my name is consequential on Amendment No. 150, which is also in my name. Would it please the noble Earl if I spoke to both of them now? In proposing my Amendment I speak for the Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance, an organisation which represents all sides of the industry—manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers. It is, of course, an industry in which I am personally interested. The confectionery industry gives general approval to the Bill. The industry, which includes many firms of high repute, has always been foremost in
902
giving the public a fair deal. The industry does not oppose the requirement of the Bill that pre-packed goods should be marked with the weight. The question is: with what weight should the goods be marked?—and even here we are concerned only with assortments of chocolates and sweets where each sweet is individually wrapped. We consider that the manufacturers should have the option of declaring either the net weight or the weight including the individual wrappings.
It may appear to your Lordships a small matter, but there must be at least 1,000 tons of such goods sold each week, which of course means millions of purchasers. Moreover, two-thirds of those goods are sold loose by weight; that is to say, are weighed out in amounts of¼ lb., ½lb. or 1 lb., as the case may be, from a bulk supply by the shopkeeper at the time of, purchase. The other 400 tons a week are sold in pre-packed units. At one time these assortments were almost entirely sold in bulk form, but over the last 25 years the sale of pre-packed units has grown considerably. Originally the sweets were wrapped to prevent them from sticking together, and to help keeping qualities, as well as to identify the various varieties. It was done, therefore, for the convenience and safety, hygienically speaking, of the public.
Gradually, however, the individual wrappings have been produced in gay and attractive colours. The public like it that way, and it adds to their enjoyment. In my young days it was only necessary to please the palate. Nowadays one has to please the eye, too, or one's products will never get as far as the palate. I must try your Lordships' patience a moment longer to make it plain that these wrappings represent only a fraction of the combined weight of the goods and immediate wrappings. For instance, in a typical assortment the wrapping would be about a one-thirty-second part; and in every case these wrappings are much more expensive—by weight—than the sweets themselves. No manufacturer, therefore, could use the wrappings to cheapen the cost of the line—quite the opposite.
With that background, may I turn to the Amendment itself. Of the 1,000 tons of goods sold a week, two-thirds are sold in bulk and weighed out by the shopkeeper at the time of purchase. This is all sold net weight, inclusive of the immediate wrappings. The Board of Trade agree that this is the only practical thing to do. The only alternative would be for the shopkeeper to unwrap every piece at the time of purchase, weigh the sweets without the wrappers, and then put all the wrappers on again, while the customer waited—obviously an impossibility. The other one-third, say 400 tons a week, is sold in pre-packed units—that is,¼ a lb., ½ lb. or 1 lb.—and again the weight includes immediate wrappings. The public have been used to this form of buying these assortments for generations and are quite satisfied with it. Sales of these goods when sold in bulk (two-thirds of them) are not subject to the provisions of this Bill and the immediate wrappings will continue to be included in the weight which the customer purchases. If, however, the same confectionery is purchased in a pre-packed form it will not, under the terms of this Bill, be possible to include the immediate wrappings in the stated weight. A ½ lb. of sweets purchased in the weigh-out form will not be the same quantity as a ½ lb. of sweets, the same sweets, purchased in the pre-packed form—to the confusion of the customer.
It is considered desirable to have the same basis of measurement of quantity for the same goods, irrespective of the pack in which they are sold. It seems unreasonable that a Bill whose object is to help the consumer in buying and to prevent him from being deceived should lead directly to confusion and misunderstanding. One has the feeling that it is done more for the sake of administrative tidiness than for any benefit to the public.
904
If the manufacturers are given the option of marking this particular type of goods or product either with the net weight or with the weight including the immediate wrappings and stating the fact on the package, no one would be deceived or aggrieved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 31, leave out ("paragraph 3") and insert ("paragraphs 3 and 4").—(Viscount Mackintosh of Halifax.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: In view of the fact that there will soon be a Royal Commission perhaps it would be convenient that the House should now resume and adjourn during pleasure.
House resumed and adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
6.0 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Indus Basin Development Fund,

British North America,

Administration of Justice (Judges and Pensions),

Expiring Laws Continuance,

National Insurance,

Ministers of the Crown (Parliamentary Secretaries),

Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation,

Clyde Navigation Order Confirmation,

Forth Road Bridge Order Confirmation.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL [H.L.]
6.14 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The effect of the two Amendments moved by the noble Viscount would be, as he has explained, to permit the great majority of pre-packed sweets to be marked with an indication of gross weight instead of an indication of net weight. Many sweets nowadays are wrapped in more than one wrapper. Frequently, as with most toffees, for example, there is an inner wrapping of greaseproof-type paper and one or more outer wrappings. Sometimes the inner wrapping is of metal foil, as, for example, in the case of some chocolates to which the noble Viscount referred. Sometimes the inner wrapping takes the form of a heavy metal foil cup in which the sweet is moulded; and sometimes there is only one wrapper, as in the case of boiled sweets. The inclusion of the weight of the wrapping on sweets is, of course, essential when sweets are sold loose and weighed in the presence of the purchaser. But the Amendment is concerned solely with pre-packed sweets, and in the course of packing it should not be difficult for the packer to make an allowance for the immediate wrappings and to put a net weight marking on the pack.
Perhaps it is not for me to say, in the presence of the noble Viscount, what is and what is not a difficult matter for a packer of chocolates. Indeed, it is true that it might seem unfair to require confectionery to be marked with the net weight of the actual sweets or chocolates, while allowing loose wrapped sweets and chocolates—that is, those not put in a box or tin—to be weighed out with their immediate wrappings included in the weight sold to the customer. It may appear to discriminate in favour of the sale of the loose confectionery as against confectionery sold in boxes and packets; indeed, the noble Viscount has said that this appears to him to be so. The question at issue is whether it is preferable to envisage this distinction in pricing between the two methods of sale, or else to provide for gross weight marking, which may easily, we think, mislead the consumer of pre-packed confectionery. The consumer is not so easily misled when buying loose confectionery since it is
906
weighed in front of him with the wrapping on, and he can see those wrappings.
The noble Viscount has, at the same time, pointed out that the innermost or immediate wrapper is small, and fairly light in most cases—he said "in every case", and I am certainly not in a position to argue with him. But even if it is in every case, I suggest that that may not always be so. Moreover, foil metals may be invented which are considerably cheaper, in which case the metal foil would not be dearer than the chocolate. In that event, were the Amendment accepted there would be nothing to prevent some manufacturers increasing the weight of the immediate wrapper, although in certain cases, no doubt, the high cost of the immediate wrapping might militate against this. In any event, the fact remains that either the weight of the immediate wrapping is small, in which case the discrimination between loose and pre-packed confectionery is small also, or else it is substantial, so that there is considerable likelihood of the consumer being seriously misled.
Some manufacturers already mark their pre-packed products with the weight including immediate wrappings, and perhaps the Amendment is designed to allow this to continue. In that case I should point out that, in making the appropriate marking regulations, the Government would be prepared in this case to allow a second marking showing the weight including immediate wrappings, in addition to the normal net weight marking. I hope that this may meet the noble Viscount's point.
VISCOUNT MACKINTOSH OF HALIFAX: I thank the noble Lord for his full reply: I might almost think he was in the trade. I will not go over his various points, but I think perhaps the compromise he suggests, while it does not go all the way, certainly goes a long way. If both the net weight and the weight including the wrappings were given, I think that would satisfy nearly everybody. For instance, a half-pound unit would have to state two weights: one, weight including the wrappings, say, 8 oz.; two, net weight, 7¾ oz. Or it could be the other way round: net weight 8 oz.; weight including immediate wrappings, 8¼ oz. Perhaps the noble Lord would just give one more thought to his advisers on what I have

907
said, but I thank him for meeting me so far, and I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment. I will not move No. 150.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.20 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to add to paragraph 2:
"and in recognisable quantities which the Board shall specify by Regulation".
The noble Lord said: This paragraph deals with pre-packed foods which must be marked with an indication of the quantity by net weight or capacity measure. The kernel of our reason for asking for this addition is the vagueness of the term "capacity measurement ". We do not want to include in the Bill references to schedules and imperial measures. We should be satisfied that where containers have to be marked by weight they should be marked in reasonable weights, and when we come to capacity, that there should be no doubt of the capacity. The paragraph as it now stands gives no indication that the consumer will know the capacity of the pre-packed article. When one refers to "capacity measurement" in the Interpretation Clause, one finds it says,
"'capacity measurement' means measurement in terms of measurement of capacity;"
That gives no indication whatsoever. Therefore, we feel that these words should be added, so that where it is a question of capacity as distinct from weight, the Board of Trade should be able to make regulations so that the consumer shall clearly know, by looking at the outside of the container, exactly what the contents are. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 34, after "measurement" insert the said words.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: There is some misunderstanding on this matter—it may be mine or it may be the noble Lord's, but I confess that I was not prepared for the way in which he argued this Amendment. If the misunderstanding is his, it is a misunderstanding which came up yesterday. The capacity marking requirements of Part XII will have to be in one or other of the lawful units in Part IV of the First Schedule, on page 53. If the Amendment goes beyond that, it would require the Board of Trade to specify the "recognisable quantities" in
908
which all these remaining foods should be pre-packed. This appears to envisage that virtually all foods should be pre-packed either in the specified weight range of 2, 4, 8, 12 ounces, 1 lb.,et cetera, or in some standard range of measures—possibly the ½gill, 1 gill, ⅓ pint, ½pint, 1 pint,et cetera, range made lawful in paragraph 1 of Part IV of the Third Schedule.
Subsection 2 (c) of Clause 22 gives the Board of Trade power by order to require any pre-packed goods to be made up in such quantities as may be specified in the order. The present Amendment is therefore unnecessary, in so far as powers are concerned, although the Government consider that its attempt to give this authority in the form of a regulation-making power is wrong. They believe that the procedure for orders made under Clause 22, which requires prior consultation with interested parties and an Affirmative Resolution in each House of Parliament, is much more appropriate for a power of this sort, which can affect particular industries so profoundly. As has already been said, the Government will use this power whenever there is a convincing case for doing so in the public interest.
However, the sting in the Amendment lies in its prescription that the Board of Trade shall specify in what "recognisable quantities" this vast range of foods must be pre-packed. This, it seems to us, is indeed regimentation on a grand scale. From crisps to caviare, from sardines to spaghetti, the quantities must be specified by the unmarried civil servants whose judgment the noble Lord himself called into question. Apart from the havoc that could be caused to the costs of those pre-packaging industries which seek economies in the use of standard containers for a range of different foods, and apart from a fairly limited range of cases, the Government believe that it is best to leave the manufacturer to pack food in the quantities which he believes the consumer really wants, and that Part XII of this Schedule, as at present drafted, gives the consumer all the protection he needs, so far as weights and measures are concerned, by ensuring that the containers are clearly marked with the quantity of food in them.
LORD STONHAM: I do not know whether there has been a misunder-

909
standing, and, if so, whether it was mine or the noble Lord's, but certainly in the last part of his speech he was suffering from a misunderstanding, because this Amendment is not intended to tell manufacturers what quantities they shall put in containers, except that they shall be quantities specified by order and recognisable. I went into this matter yesterday and do not want to repeat it, but the use of "one glass" or "four portions" is not an indication of quantity which the customer recognises. II it is a half-pound container and the customer is charged for half a pound, that should be on the outside of the container. That is the point. There is no question of the Board of Trade saying how much there should be in the containers.
I would remind your Lordships that we are talking about pre packed goods. My remarks with regard to civil servants were limited to the filleting of fish, which is not pre-packed at all. These goods are already in containers. They have already done their worst to them. I want to know whether the civil servants will have regulations whereby there shall be stuck on the outside of the containers exactly what is in them, either in weight or actual capacity. The capacity should not be in portions or glassfuls, but some measure that everyone recognises. That is the whole purpose of the Amendment.
LORD ST. OSWALD: We think it is possible that the noble Lord's Amendment would give powers greater than he intended. It is clear that he does not intend to give such powers, but in fact the Amendment, if incorporated in the Bill, would do so. Would the noble Lord allow me to look at this again and read his words beside the Bill as it stands, and I will communicate with him?
LORD STONHAM: I certainly should be most grateful and, on that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN moved to add to paragraph 2:
"except that, where such goods consists of foodstuffs canned or otherwise preserved in water or brine, the drained weight of the solid content shall he marked on the container".
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is a simple one and your Lordships will see that its object is to protect the consumer from tins or cans where the liquid comprises an undue proportion of the contents. There have been cases investigated by those who take an interest in these things. There was not long ago an investigation in regard to canned peaches which found that some 10 out of 20 tins contained less than 55 per cent. of fruit by weight; 3 of them contained 51 per cent. or less, and one contained only 48 per cent. of fruit, all the rest being syrup. It is to deal with that sort of situation that we have put down this Amendment. During the war, I understand that Government regulations prescribed a minimum fill weight—that is, the actual weight of fruit put into the tin—but those regulations were withdrawn in 1952, and since then there has been a voluntary code of practice among the canning industry. Frankly, this does not seem to be universally observed. This voluntary control seems to us to be inadequate, and we should like to see it replaced. It is with that purpose in view that I move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 34, after ("measurement") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: This Bill states that with certain exceptions, all pre-packed foods which have not been the subject of a special marking requirement in the preceding Parts of this Schedule shall be marked with their net weight or measure. The Amendment would qualify this in respect of foods canned in water or brine, so as to require the weight of the solid contents to be marked, being their weight when the water or brine has been drained away. I see the force of the noble Earl's argument. There is undoubtedly the possibility that the public could be defrauded to some extent if manufacturers filled a tin with a small amount of solid content and a substantial amount of water and brine. The weight marking the total contents of such a tin might be the same as for one which contained a larger amount of solid contents and a smaller amount of brine, although the relatively lighter weight of water and brine than that of the solid contents imposes fairly narrow limitations upon the extent to which this

911
could be done without using a can which would have to be so large in relation to its marked weight that it would in itself be a danger signal to the prospective purchaser.
The noble Earl mentioned the example of canned peaches and an unnecessary amount of syrup, which presumably is in a different weight relationship to the canned peaches from the brine and water in other products. The Hodgson Committee drew attention to this possibility of fraud; but they conceded that there was no absolute method of verifying a drained weight marking to within a precise degree of accuracy. Their solution, in the area in which they suggested the drained weight method, was to use it as a rough check which might, over a period of time, furnish evidence for proceedings against a defaulting packer if continuous discrepancies were found between his drained weight markings and the weights ascertained by these tests.
This method can, in short, be used only if a large-scale and prolonged fraud is taking place; and the Government have had no evidence that this is happening. In this country and many overseas countries which supply our market with these goods, the trades concerned in many of these goods observe standard codes of practice, either under Statute, or voluntarily, as to the percentage of solid fill which is put into the cans at time of packing. Further, it must be remembered that, even since the days of the Hodgson Committee, competition has pressed strongly upon the canners from the prepackaging of frozen fruits, frozen vegetables and similar frozen foods. A canner who tried to defraud the public would probably find his market shrinking fast; an excessive amount of water or brine in the can would be evidence against him which few consumers would fail to detect.
Subsection (2) (c) of Clause 22 empowers the Board of Trade by order to require any pre-packed goods to be marked with their quantity in such manner as may be specified in the order; and, if a serious abuse arose in the case of the cans which are under discussion, the Government could use this power to require a drained weight marking, or such other form of marking as would best suit the circumstances. But in the absence of
912
evidence as to such an abuse, the Government do not believe it would be appropriate at this stage to impose on the trades concerned a form of marking requirement which, as it cannot be enforced with absolute precision, might be regarded as placing them in jeopardy of unjustifiable prosecutions.
If the noble Earl can give chapter and verse of the cases he has in mind, and can show that they are on a large and continuing scale, then, no doubt, in view of the terms that I have referred to, we could and would take action. I can tell him that his Amendment would not affect the position of canned peaches. These are canned in a syrup solution, and a number of people like a good helping of this syrup in the can. The Amendment, as the noble Earl will appreciate, relates only to goods canned in water or brine. Personally, as to whether anybody would want 45 per cent. of syrup, I should not be prepared to say. If the noble Earl would be ready to leave it and will bring any really outrageous cases that he can to our notice, that would be of great interest; but at the moment we are not aware of any.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his full and comprehensive reply, and I am glad of his invitation to bring to his notice any cases of which I may know. I gather that the Board of Trade have the responsibility to see that fair practices are maintained. Nevertheless, if I should hear of any cases, I will certainly bring them to the noble Lord's notice.
LORD ST. OSWALD: That was the point I was making: that in point of fact the Board of Trade have no evidence of anything on a sufficient scale to warrant this Amendment.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I appreciate that. I can well appreciate the noble Lord's point about the canning competition in the last two years. But is it not the object of the advertiser to make his goods so attractive on the shelves that they are bought, relying on the housewife's short memory for her to forget that when she opened the tin she found unsatisfactory goods? I think a lot of the things we have been dealing with in this Bill are very much influenced by the enormous growth of advertising, as to its extent, quality and effectiveness. It is

913
that that we must remember in closing the loopholes that we find to the detriment of the consumer.
LORD ST. OSWALD: There is one other point that I omitted in speaking to the Amendment. In point of fact, the contents of cans are not, strictly speaking, weights and measures business; they can be covered under regulations made under the Food and Drugs Act.
LORD SHEPHERD: I would only question the noble Lord's proposition that competition in itself will give protection to the consumer. The noble Lord may know that many canned foods are bought from a central canning factory to a certain specification, according to the buyer, and the wholesale buyer puts on his own label, There may be a lot of cans of pineapple coming out of a factory, and many different labels are put on. Therefore, all the unscrupulous wholesaler is interested in is buying 1,000 cases, putting them up with a specially attractive make-up and advertising them; and, if he finds the public have fallen to it, he then produces another label. It is remarkably simple. This is going on regularly in the trade. Therefore, the noble Lord is quite wrong in saying that because competition is keen this will give protection to the public. May I make another point? I think the noble Lord forgot the position of the decent, responsible manufacturer. He can well find that his sales will be affected by the malpractice of other people. As I have said before in this debate, we are not looking only for the protection of the consumer, but for the protection of the first-class, honest manufacturer and supplier.
LORD AUCKLAND: Before the noble Lord replies, I wonder if I might ask the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, whether it is not a fact that canned fruits are graded? You get Grade 1 and Grade 2 peaches, and so on. Therefore, it is surely reasonable to suppose that in the top grade fruit you would get a better quantity and quality than, say, in the second grade. Also, to what extent is the heavy syrup —which is obviously heavier in some fruits than others—used as a preservative for the fruits concerned? I feel that has some bearing on this question.
LORD SILKIN: One of the arguments of the noble Lord was that if it should
914
turn out to be necessary, and if his attention were drawn to malpractices, it would be possible to make regulations under Clause 22.
LORD ST. OSWALD: It is already, of course.
LORD SILKIN: For this purpose?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes.
LORD SILKIN: I should doubt it. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would have Clause 22 looked at again to see whether it could be applied to a case of this kind. If it could not, as I rather suspect, it might be necessary to amend Clause 22 at a later stage in order to make the necessary provision.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, I think I can assure him, although I have not got the document with me, that the investigation of the canned peaches took account of the grading—in other words, they were compared grade for grade, with the result I gave. I think the subject has been adequately ventilated, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.44 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: This Amendment relates to Part XII of the Fifth Schedule and deals, among other things, with certain exemptions. One of the exemptions is that of biscuits in a quantity of less than 4 oz. I should like to know what are the grounds upon which the Government are seeking to exempt pre-packed biscuits of quantities of less than 4 oz. Why should they not be subject to the same requirements as other pre-packed articles? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, leave out line 37.—(Lord Latham.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: The Amendment would delete the exemption the noble Lord has described, and thus require these small packs of biscuits to be marked with their net weight. It would be extremely difficult for the packer to mark a weight that would give the public any close idea as to the real quantity. The weight of biscuits of even the same variety can vary considerably between one batch and another, depending upon the exact balance of ingredients in the mix before baking, upon variations

915
during the baking process itself, and upon humidity conditions during and immediately after baking. With the larger boxes, the manufacturer takes care of this by a careful check of the weights at the packing stage, where a biscuit will either be added to or taken away from the box, according to whether the baking has been light or heavy in relation to the average weight to which he is working. Thus he is able to make the weight in the box tally pretty closely with the intended weight which will already have been printed on the container.
But this solution is not possible with the small packs below 4 oz. in weight, which are usually pre-packed in a light transparent wrapper only. Here the whole basis of the trade is to pack a sufficient number of biscuits—say four or six—to meet a particular consumer demand for that number: for example, when two or three people buy a pack to eat with their coffee in a coffee bar. With these packs, if there has been a light baking the manufacturer cannot add another whole biscuit without serious interference, both with the practice of using these light wrappers and with his ability to sell all the packs at a standard price. Then, if a marking requirement is imposed, the packer would be compelled, in order to avoid prosecution for the downward variations in the weight of particular batches of biscuits, to mark a weight which is so far below the normal weight as to be almost meaningless to the purchaser. There seems little point in doing this, particularly when the purchaser is usually able to see at a glance the number and size of the biscuits in these light transparent wrappers. I hope I have satisfactorily explained the reason for the paragraph as it stands to the noble Lord who moved the Amendment.
LORD LATHAM: I think the noble Lord has put up a magnificent defence of the manufacturer, but he has given little comfort to the consumer. It is incomprehensible, in these days of mechanical knowledge and mechanical appliances and techniques, that manufacturers cannot arrange for a package of a small number of biscuits of less than 4 oz. to be in fact the weight which it purports to be. That is what the noble Lord is saying—that it cannot be done.
916
Therefore the Bill has to be adjusted here for the benefit of the manufacturer, and not the consumer, whereas its purpose is the protection of the consumer.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I think the noble Lord is being unjust. I have explained that manufacturers cannot tell to within a very fine amount what six biscuits are going to weigh. They can adjust a larger box of biscuits by putting in an extra biscuit, or taking one out. But when the packet is reduced to a small amount of six biscuits, they are not able to make that normal adjustment, and the consumer in that case is buying his biscuits by number—and it is the sort of packet that he wants. We are not thinking simply of the manufacturer; we are thinking of the consumer, because in point of fact if this Amendment went through it might well be that the manufacturers would have to withdraw this type of pack.
LORD LATHAM: The manufacturer is quite able to ascertain the weight when he is fixing price. In any case, it does not meet the situation to say that the consumer can see how many biscuits there are. Until you have broken the pack open you cannot see, and then, of course, the sale is complete. However, in the light of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.50 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD LORD ST. OSWALD moved in paragraph 3, at the beginning of subparagraph (5) to insert:
"any of the following other than dates, that is to say"
The noble Lord said: The Government are moving this Amendment because of the attention which Lord Latham drew to the question of fresh dates in the earlier Amendments he proposed, namely, in page 69, line 14, to leave out "dates"; and in page 69, line 31, at the end to insert "dates, whether dried or fresh". As was explained in the discussion on those earlier Amendments, the Government believed that the so-called "fresh" dates, which are virtually all imported into this country already pre-packed, were in fact subject to a minor form of processing before packing, which meant that they were not fresh within the meaning of the Bill and hence would not

917
fall within the exemption for fresh fruits and vegetables conferred by sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 3 of Part XII of this Schedule. Thus, they would fall within the requirement of paragraph 2 of that Part, namely, that they must be marked with their net weight.
Evidence has since come to light that these dates could well be regarded as falling within the exemption from this requirement conferred by sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 3. The Government still consider that it is desirable that these pre-packed dates should be marked with their net weight; the Amendment will accordingly achieve this by ensuring that sub-paragraph (5) does not cover them.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 42, at beginning insert ("any of the following other than dates, that is to say").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: The Government will be aware that the next Amendment on the Paper uses the same words as the previous Amendment, No. 124, on the Marshalled List, discussion upon which began last night and concluded this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, indicated that he would look at these points. This Amendment is consequential on the other Amendment. I have no doubt that there is no need to discuss those points any further, and so I shall not move this Amendment.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in paragraph 5 (11) (d) to leave out "three" and insert "one". The noble Lord said: This Amendment also relates to Part XII, which is concerned with the granting of exemption from the requirements of the Schedule for a number of articles, including sugar and chocolate confectionery. There is an exemption for "single articles weighing less than three ounces", the articles being composed of sugar and chocolate. The Government will see the justification for this proposal. It cannot be in the public interest to permit sugar or chocolate confectionery to be entirely exempted from the Schedule. Nevertheless they propose that single articles weighing less than three ounces should be exempt. The Amendment proposes that the exemption limit of three ounces should be reduced to one
918
ounce. If exemption is permitted for small bars of chocolate, I would point out that there is a very considerable and growing sale of them to children. Those which have for many years been sold by weight will escape this quantity control.
It is known, of course, that certain chocolate manufacturers have recently, and quite arbitrarily, varied the sizes of small popular packs, and that at least one manufacturer has been convicted of misrepresentation. In the manufacturing machinery the weight of such articles can be determined with uniform, workable accuracy to very small limits, if necessary, far more precisely than can many of the other commodities to which the Schedules of the Bill apply. For that reason I move the Amendment and I hope that we may get some satisfaction from the noble Lord.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 12, leave out ("three") and insert ("one")—(Lord Latham.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: This Amendment relates to the exemption from the marking requirement in Part XII of this Schedule conferred by sub-paragraph (11) (d) of paragraph 3 of this Part, on articles of sugar and chocolate confectionery weighing less than 3 ounces. The Amendment would reduce this exemption limit to less than 1 ounce. As a matter of detail, there is a general exemption limit from the requirements of this Part for goods weighing less than 1 ounce, which is conferred by subsection (12) of paragraph 3; and the correct way to achieve the purpose of the Amendment would therefore be simply to delete sub-paragraph (11) (d) entirely.
On the substance of the Amendment, I would point out that the exemption limit for articles weighing less than 3 ounces is primarily designed to cover the ordinary 6d. bar of chocolate and similar articles of chocolate and sugar confectionery. These are normally made to weigh about 2 ounces, but the manufacturers have long adopted the practice of varying the weights up or down slightly to take account of changes in the costs of the ingredients. Thus they are able to keep the price at the round 6d. If they were required to mark the weight, they would have to print the marked labels well in advance of use: and, being thus committed in advance as to the weight to be given, they would

919
have to alter their selling prices to take account of any current changes in costs.
This would be most inconvenient for the small boy who might find that his Saturday 6d. would no longer be sufficient to buy his favourite chocolate bar, because its price had temporarily gone up to 6½d., and it would make coin-in-the-slot sales more difficult to arrange. These small chocolate bars are nearly always sold in a light wrapper, so that the buyer can fairly easily judge the size of the contents by eye, with little risk of being misled by a deceptively large container. A marking requirement would on the whole tend to work against, rather than work for, the consumers interests in this field.
LORD LATHAM: Time after time when an Amendment has been moved by my noble friends the Government's answer has been to the effect, "This is impossible, because the manufacturers cannot do it for this reason or that". This is supposed to be a Bill for the protection of the consumer. Why should the small boy with his exiguous 6d. on Saturday think he is getting more for his 6d. than in fact he is getting? Surely we in this Chamber stand for justice. The noble Lord will, I hope, look at these submissions of ours with a little more sympathy for the consumer and with a little less regard for the manufacturer.
LORD HAWKE: I hope that my noble friend will have in mind the very great convenience it is to the consumer to be able to buy these chocolate bars or biscuits for a round figure of 6d., particularly when more and more of these bars are sold from vending machines. Chocolate manufacturers in this country have played the game very well indeed. It would be greatly to the inconvenience of the consumer if, when chocolate prices went up, consumers had to pay more than 6d. for their bars and less when they went down. It is much better to have a "6d. bar" and it is obviously much cheaper to manufacture it in that way.
LORD LATHAM: The noble Lord says that manufacturers would have to change the size or the weight by reference to variations of cost. It is not very—I will not say honest, but commendable, to
920
adopt a proceeding of that kind, passing it on without the person knowing it is being passed on.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Would the noble Lord think it more suitable to put the price up? The customer wants to spend 6d. He buys 6d. worth of chocolate at that particular time.
LORD LATHAM: The next week he buys 6d. worth of chocolate and gets less.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Or more.
LORD LATHAM: Or more.
LORD DERWENT: May I say it is very difficult to cheat a small boy, and if you are going to have anything appreciably less for 6d. he is going to complain. It will soon get round.
LORD LATHAM: That is a somewhat exiguous justification. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Fifth Schedule (continued):
PART XIII
Tables of permitted weights for containers
7.2 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: This Amendment proposes to leave out Part XIII, and it is of course dependent on our earlier discussion. We have asked the Government to dispense with the provision for selling by gross weight and container allowances, and I hope that, after consideration, they will accept our arguments and introduce the necessary Amendment. If so, this particular Amendment will be necessary. But it certainly is not necessary to discuss it until the Government have had further time to consider our other arguments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 20, leave out Part XIII.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD SHEPHERD: I rise to ask the Government to examine very carefully whether it is necessary to have a quite big contrast between the weights of containers permitted under Table A and Table B. From what I heard yesterday I am not satisfied that certain items should be allowed to have a permitted weight of container of 2½ drams for a 1 lb. article and another item 4½

921
drams. I am not querying the Govment's attitude on the principle of granting container allowances, but I do question whether on Table B it is justified to have 4½ drams.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not know if the next three Amendments amending these Tables are being moved. If so, it would obviously be better to answer the noble Lord when they are moved.
LORD STONHAM: It was for that reason 1 did not make any discussion about amounts in what I said before my noble friend intervened. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON moved to omit Table A (providing for a permitted weight of container of 2½ drams where the gross weight does not exceed 1 lb., and, in items exceeding 1 lb., a weight at the rate of 2½ drams per lb. of the gross weight), and to insert instead:

"Any weight…

A weight at the rate of 2½ drams per lb. of the gross weight"

The noble Lord said: I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I spoke to the next three Amendments together; they differ only in detail, and the fundamental principle is exactly the same.
The noble Lords dealing with the Bill on the Government side have spoken again and again of the very small percentages of the gross weight of the various articles which will be wrapped by a scrap of paper or a wrapper. I pointed out yesterday that under some of these Tables the amount might be quite considerable where the smaller parcels were concerned. I pointed out that under Table A a couple of ounces of ham could be wrapped in a piece of paper or wrapper which would represent 8 per cent. of the total, which begins to be a considerable amount. Incidentally, I remember that I was corrected and told that it would be 12½ per cent. I have not worked it out again, and I am not sure which it is, but in either case it is a fairly considerable amount. I suggest that the weight of the wrapper should
922
have some relation to the weight of the article wrapped.
Table B is slightly different, in that it varies, but the principle is the same; the percentage permitted weight will be a different one as the parcel becomes larger and heavier. Table C is for the containers which are to be used for soft fruits. I am terrified that I might "get in bad" with my noble friend Lord Stonham, but the fact remains that I am informed that the weights permitted under this Table are considered by those who understand the market to be excessive, and that there are punnets available which could fulfil the suggested weightage of containers which I propose in this Amendment to this particular Table. I would only add that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham and I perhaps would be in agreement that in the case of a punnet of strawberries the percentages could be 7 oz. of fruit to 1 oz. of container—which I do make 12½ per cent. That is quite a considerable proportion; and in that case of Table C I am reliably informed that punnets of a suitable size and weight are available. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, leave out lines 25 to 28, and insert the said new Table.—(Lord Faringdon.)
LORD HAWKE: The only experience I have of these containers is on Table C and those in the upper limits confirm what I remember as being the weights of my chipboard punnets. On the other hand, cardboard punnets are coming into much more use, and I suspect that the cardboard is a heavier punnet than the chipboard, particularly the 1 lb. punnet, so that the cardboard requires a heavier allowance than is necessary for the chipboard.
LORD STONHAM: I rise only to confirm my complete agreement with what my noble friend Lord Faringdon said. I am altogether opposed to container allowances, but I certainly feel that in all three Tables the allowances are unnecessarily high, and particularly in Table C where the punnet allowance (and this is in conflict with what the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. said) is very much higher than it need be. If we must have container allowances, I think it is imperative that they should be reviewed so that only the necessary minimum is

923
allowed. I think the idea that traders should charge for one commodity when in fact they are selling another is most unsound. But if the Government insist on that unsound principle, let us have it as small as possible.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: We are discussing the three Tables, A, B and C together. On Table A, I think the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, was right in his percentage calculation. In the case of a very small weight like 2 oz. the weight of the wrapper or container might be as much as 8 per cent. But, of course, percentages are sometimes misleading; the more microscopic the quantities with which you are dealing the more meaningless they become. The noble Lord could perhaps have made a stronger case for his Amendment if he had taken the conservative line that what he proposes is, in fact, the existing law. The scale of permitted allowances which he has put down in his Amendment is that at present in force, and the lowest item in the scale in this Bill is a change from the existing law. Instead of giving an allowance at the rate of 2½ drams per lb. when the gross weight of the goods is 1 lb. or less, the Bill as now drafted gives a flat 2½ drams allowance over the whole range of goods up to the 1 lb. mark.
The reason why we have changed this is simply that experience has shown that the allowance given in the 1926 Act was too small to serve its purpose in the lower weight ranges. At the ¼ lb. mark, at which butter or cooking fat may be sold, or the processed meats which the Bill is now specifically covering for the first time, the container allowance works out at only⅝ of a dram, or, in other words, about 1/25 of an ounce. Whatever the percentage may be, that, in absolute terms, is too small a weight for the shopkeeper to be able to use effectively. It is, in fact, well within the margin of error which the law permits his weighing machines to have. The new allowance which we propose in the Bill is the equivalent of about 1 per cent. at the 1 lb. mark, 2 per cent. at the ½lb. mark and 4 per cent. at the ¼lb. mark. This seems a small price for the consumer to pay in the interests of quick handling and convenience.
924
There was another consideration about this change. Not all shopkeepers are particularly anxious to supply very small quantities of their goods, and it would be unreasonable to put in jeopardy the shopkeeper who made the effort to meet this need, unless he or his assistants remembered to cut up the normal sheet of greaseproof paper so that it would not exceed the weight allowed by the Amendment when used for the sale of such small quantities as 2 oz. or 4 oz. of butter. As a matter of interest, and as there are some scales in the Prince's Chamber, I weighed some of these Order Papers. I had to weigh four before the half-ounce scale was turned, which means that one of these Order Papers weighs about 2 drams. Two and a half drams is the permitted weight. If you can imagine the paper weighing this and its having to be cut into four or five pieces one-quarter or one-fifth of its weight in order to wrap 2 oz. or 4 oz. of butter, your Lordships can imagine the amount of anxiety and inconvenience that would be caused to everybody, including the consumer. It really becomes too inconsiderable to insist upon the validity of percentages at these low quantities. It is because it has been found in practice to be unenforceable that we are changing the amount in Table A.
On Table B the same argument applies. Experience has shown here that the allowance given in the 1926 Act was too small to serve its purpose in the lower-weight ranges. Some of these goods are sold in quantities of ½lb., at which level the old allowance was 2¼ drams or 1/7th of an ounce. That gave extremely little room for manœuvre in which to use either a bag sufficiently strong for the goods to be carried away in or a cellophane wrapper sufficiently tough to protect the quality of the goods inside. The allowance proposed in the Bill is the equivalent of just over 1½ per cent., at the 1 lb. mark, and a little over 3 per cent. at the ½lb. Mark; and, as with the container allowance discussed in the previous Amendment, this seems again to be a small price to pay for enabling the consumer to have his goods wrapped in a container which will be stout enough to protect their quality and to carry them home without their getting damaged.

925
Finally, there is Table C—the punnets, about which I think Lord Stonham felt most strongly. The Amendment would substitute for the allowances in this Bill an allowance at the rate of 1 oz. per lb. for all the weights in which these fruits might be sold. At the ¼lb. mark, at which fruits are often sold, that means that the allowance would be 4 drams. The evidence is that the great majority of punnets which are used for this purpose weigh 5 or 6 drams. When one gets to the ½lb. mark, which is another popular quantity for the sale of these fruits, the allowance would be 8 drams. Some of the punnets which are used for selling ½lb. of fruit are exactly that amount, just 8 drams, which would provide no margin of safety at all for the packer. But some of them are more. The majority are somewhere between 8 and 12 drams. So that in these common transactions the container allowance proposed in the noble Lord's Amendment could cut straight across the normal basis of trade and would defeat the purposes of Part VII of the Schedule as it is at present drafted. The effect would be either to compel the packer to mark the punnets with the net weight of fruit, which the Government believe would be an unreasonable requirement, or to compel the retailer to tip the fruit out of the punnet to be weighed net on the scales, which I think would not be a very popular thing to do with the customer.
LORD FARINGDON: I confess that I am impressed with the noble Earl's argument, certainly upon Tables A and B—particularly on Table A I thought that he had made his case. I feel a little less sure about Table B, although again I am impressed by his assurance that the figures have been altered in an upward direction as the result of experience since the passing of the last Act. The one I am really disappointed about is Table C. I am not sure that I follow his argument. It seemed to me that he was not giving adequate weight to the fact that, as I am reliably assured, the punnets within the limits I have suggested are available. I think that most of us would agree that on the whole a container should form as small a part of the gross weight as possible, because otherwise there is a tendency for the consumer to think that he or she is getting more than is the case. I would
926
ask the noble Earl to consider particularly Table C, and to see whether I am correctly informed and that punnets of the lighter weight are available. If he will kindly look at that, I will, with the permission of the Committee, withdraw this Amendment. And I will not move the others.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Sixth Schedule [Sand and Other Ballast]:
PART I
General provisions
1. In this Schedule, the expression "ballast" means any of the following materials, that is to say—

(a)sand, including moulding sand, refractory sand, and any other sand used for industrial purposes;

(b)gravel, shingle, ashes and clinker;

7.20 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in paragraph 1, to add to sub-paragraph (b): "and slag". The noble Lord said: We are now at Amendment No. 155A, and the subsequent three Amendments are all related to the question of slag and ballast. Whilst the extension and clarification of "ballast" is welcomed in the circles concerned, it is felt that these Amendments would assist in clearing many doubts under current legislation. It is further considered that the position would be improved if there were a specific inclusion of topsoil in the excavated earth used for any filling. Apart from the general public local authorities are themselves, as users, interested in this description and in the provisions of the Schedule. They want to be quite sure that slag, slag chippings and tarred slag chippings are brought within the control of the Schedule, as all these items are bought in large quantities by local authorities for road-making purposes. As the clause is drafted, it is not clear that slag chippings and tarred slag chippings are covered. it is felt to be important that they should be, and that the doubt should be removed. I hope that it may he found possible for this Amendment to be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 20, at end insert ("and slag"). —(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: When I looked first at the noble Lord's Amendment I could not see that it mattered whether slag came in, as we have it, in line 23, or, as the noble Lord's Amendment proposes, as associated with gravel, shingle, ashes and clinker. I think the noble Lord has given a good reason for preferring his own context. He says he wishes to remove doubts in the matter, which is always a good thing to do; and if it does not detract in any way—and I do not think it does—from the scope of the Schedule, I am willing to accept the noble Lord's Amendment. I am not quite sure about the drafting. Perhaps it would be better if the noble Lord would withdraw his Amendment now, and I will consult the Parliamentary Counsel about the drafting aspect.
LORD LATHAM: In those circumstances, which I greatly appreciate, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.23 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My noble friend Lord Jessel is away again—I am happy to say for a reason very different from that for which he was away last time. He has asked me to move this Amendment and I understand he has really put it down because he wants to know what paragraph 2 (b) means—if anything. It says:
"ballast of any description…shall be carried for reward only in pursuance of an agreement made by reference to the quantity of the ballast by such volume or weight."
The difficulty really is the question of "reward". It is quite a common thing to hire out a lorry for the day to carry ballast. The only terms of the hiring relate to what is carried: that it must not exceed a particular weight, depending on the size of the vehicle. It seems to me that, where this is done—and it is quite a common habit—paragraph 2 (b) does not at all cover the case. My noble friend put this Amendment down in search of information. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 35, leave out sub-paragraph (b).—(Lord Derwent.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am sure your Lordships will wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jesse, on the reason for his absence, and also his noble friend Lord Derwent on so clearly
928
moving this Amendment on his behalf. Paragraph 2 of the Sixth Schedule, to which this Amendment relates, requires ballast of any description to be sold only by volume or net weight and to be carried for reward only in pursuance of an agreement made by reference to the volume or weight of the ballast. The Amendment would make it unnecessary for ballast to be carried for reward only in pursuance of such an agreement, and, if it were accepted, would remove also a requirement of existing law which has been in existence ever since 1936.
This paragraph re-enacts in more precise form, the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 1 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1936. This Act was passed with the full agreement of the appropriate trade bodies, and if it was desired that the existing legislation should be modified in the way proposed by this Amendment one would have expected the Sand and Gravel Association, whose members would be very much affected by the change, to have made representations to that effect. In fact they have made no such representations, presumably because they are aware that the 1936 requirement and this requirement which repeats it have been and are being of considerable value in combating fraudulent practices. I hope my noble friend will agree to leave the law as it is now.
LORD WALERAN: My noble friend Lord Dundee has mentioned that the Act deals with measuring this ballast by volume or weight. One can imagine ballast being sand. Sand is often used as ballast, but I do not think there is any provision in the Act for the moisture content of the sand. One could have a volume which is much heavier if very wet, and "by weight" really means nothing unless the moisture content is specified.
LORD DERWENT: I am in some quandary, because my noble friend must have had any consultations there have been. But it seems to me—and I am trying to find out on his behalf—that I have not had any answer. I quite understand that the present legislation may be what the sand and ballast people want and it may be the most suitable, but what my noble friend is asking for is whether, when someone hires a lorry out for the day to move ballast, which, as I have

929
said, is a fairly common practice, anyone (either the hirer or the person to whom the lorry belongs) is covered or controlled in any way by this paragraph.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: At first sight I should say yes, certainly. It makes no difference whether one hires a lorry or whether the lorry is one's own. But if there is any doubt about it I will gladly examine the matter and ascertain the position.
LORD DERWENT: I am speaking of hiring a lorry for a period, not for a particular job. I should be grateful if my noble friend would look into that point, to see what is and is not covered. In view of his statement that he will look into the matter, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sixth Schedule agreed to.
Seventh Schedule [Solid Fuel]:
LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE had given notice of several Amendments to Part I, the first being in paragraph 1 to leave out "and wood fuel." The noble Lord said: The Hodgson Committee recommended in paragraph 374 of their Report that wood fuel should be sold by weight. They made their Report ten years ago and the conditions then were very different from what they are to-day. There was an acute shortage of solid fuel, coal was rationed, there was less widespread electricity and gas and, moreover, there were frequent electricity cuts; so people had then to supplement their coal by buying wood fuel. There were numerous dealers in wood fuel, some of a rather shady character, and they went round selling logs by the sack or by the hundred; and, undoubtedly, often the housewife got rather poor value. But she would not have got any better value if it had been weighed, because she had to buy it. She needed the logs or she went cold.
To-day the position is very different. Wood fuel is a buyers market and nobody has any difficulty in buying it at all. There are sellers still in the market but they are a rather different type. The more shady type of seller has gone out of business, and the people now in business are coal merchants, sawmills, farmers and smallholders and small contractors. Where I live in Sussex, which
930
is in the heart of one of the great British forests, I have four sellers within a mile or two. Two are sawmills; one is a largish farmer; the other is a smallish farmer. The smallish farmer sells by occasionally buying a cord or two of wood when he thinks it is a bargain; carts it to his farmyard when he has time, saws up some for his own purposes, and keeps constantly at his back gate a paper meal sack full of logs marked "2s." with a box alongside. Passing lorry drivers and motorists take the sack, put 2s. in the box, and appear quite satisfied. He has not got a weighing machine.
Then we come to the two sawmills. One has traditionally supplied the cottagers and others in the neighbourhood with sawn logs for a great many years and sells by the lorry load believed to contain so many tons. The other sawmill advertises lorry loads of off-cuts—£2 10s. 0d., I think is the charge in this case. Neither of those has weighing machines and it would be impossible to weigh off-cuts in a weighing machine, in any case. The only way would be to drive to a weighbridge. One happens to be rather close—only five miles away—and so the cost would probably not be more than 10s. to 20s. per load, but I do not think the consumer would get any better bargain than he does at the moment, because if he is dissatisfied with one delivery, the next lime, in a buyer's market, he buys from someone else. But they all have a high reputation and they keep their customers.
If these things have to be weighed, the supplier will have the greatest possible interest in selling logs of the greatest specific gravity—in other words. green logs—so that instead of mature oak two or three years old, which is what we like to burn, he will have a monetary advantage in selling this year's cutting which, as everybody knows, will not burn at all well. Moreover, he will have a definite monetary advantage in making quite certain that his log pile is out of doors, exposed to the elements, rather than under cover, which would make it weigh less and burn better. I have no doubt that, though the Bill says damping is illegal, if there are any unscrupulous small sellers still in the market damping would be done deliberately as

931
well. So in the interests of the customer it is better that he should buy by measure rather than by weight.
The measures are of various sorts. I have no doubt that in other parts of the country they are different. Around me, as I have said, small buyers tend to buy a load, which is a lorry load. But they also, when they know some cutting has been going on, buy a cord in the field and get a farmer or somebody to cart it in for them and saw it up for themselves. Both these methods would be quite illegal as the Bill stands. My noble friend realises that there are great difficulties in this regard and he is trying to meet us by putting down an Amendment to except wholesale transactions, but, frankly, I do not see how it is possible to define what a "wholesale transaction" is. I dare say he means to except sales by the cord or by the lorry load. But these are definitely retail transactions in my part of the world, if they are sold to a buyer who intends to use the stuff himself. This is one of the cases where we get into great difficulties by trying to protect the consumer against a danger which to-day is not very real; and I think that sales of wood fuel, in a buyer's market, can safely be left under the principle of caveat emptor. I have no interest in this: I never sell firewood. I have occasionally bought a cord or two.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 8, leave out ("and wood fuel.")—(Lord Hawke.)
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: As a forester, I am concerned in this matter. I am sorry that the proposal to include wood fuel raises so many difficulties. I am afraid that a serious view is taken of it by those who are most concerned at the present time in reafforestation. There is a difficulty in finding a solution and any more suitable Amendment than the one which is now moved, particularly because firewood or wood fuel is sold in many different ways, in many different forms, different quantities and different qualities. I would, emphasise that the disposal of firewood is very important in woodland economy. At the same time, wood is of course a type of fuel that is very much wanted by householders in towns and villages in the neighbourhood
932
of woodlands and plantations, and, to a lesser extent, in the cities.
I think it is well known that the costs of afforestation are very large and with no profit during a period when there is to be more investment in new planting other than revenue from the exploitation of mature trees it is necessary to try to sell firewood at a profit, including, the limbs and tops for wood fuel. It is necessary to get them off the ground before one can replant. I think that in all these matters there will be agreement. I do not see how compulsory weighing of wood fuel is a practicable or suitable requirement in this Bill, and it seems better to leave wood fuel in the position it is in now. It is so often not sold by weight, and if weighed the weight can be more or less according to how wet or dry the fuel is, and the quality can be good or bad. To omit sales by woodland owners wholesale would help, but it is difficult to find men now who can and will buy with a view to resale by retail, and many could easily be deterred altogether if they had also the costs of arranging for the weighing imposed.
On many occasions I find it difficult (and I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that there will be difficulty on this) to distinguish between wholesale and retail. As the noble Earl has set down an Amendment to exclude wood fuel sold wholesale, it does not look as if he intends to accept the Amendment to omit wood fuel altogether: and yet, however one tries to legislate on this matter, it is difficult to see how it can be done usefully and effectively and without doing more harm than good. The margin between profit and loss on the sale of firewood is very narrow; and in many places the result will be either a raising of the cost or a reduction in the amount available. Furthermore, a strict enforcement of the proposed regulations throughout the country would lead to unnecessary expense.
Sales of firewood are from sawn material at sawmills in loads to individual buyers in the nearest towns and villages; also, many try to sell in the wood to firewood merchants who then sell retail, but, owing to the very small profit, these firewood merchants are dropping out and are becoming fewer, and it is already becoming more difficult

933
to dispose of firewood at all. And yet the firewood is definitely wanted by persons within a few miles. Moreover, it is necessary to get rid of the firewood and of the tops and branches before you can replant; and, at the same time, no one wants to have to use his men for burning on the ground, thus losing time and money, instead of their doing necessary work. I think we ought not to overlook, also, that the extraction of firewood from many of the woods is difficult and expensive, and the damage to the rides and routes by extraction is so great that it very likely reduces a profit to a loss, in any case.
There are many details into which one could go, but I do not propose to do so at this time in the evening. However, among the chief items of cost I might mention a little more about the high costs of transport charges, with costs of loading and unloading, and therefore the growing practice of cutting the wood into logs in the woods and of the consumers picking up the wood direct. In many of these cases it is difficult to conceive how the weighing is to be done and how the law is to be enforced. The ordinary person has to try to understand a terrible number of laws, and this new proposal, if passed into law, will make many fresh complications in regard to the sale of wood fuel in its various stages and different methods between the time when the tree is standing and when it reaches the householder. If we pass a law which will, in a great many cases, complicate the sale of firewood and be a deterrent to retailers, we ought to make sure—and shall we be sure?—that there is a real benefit to the public for whom it is intended.
We should consider whether it will be a sufficient additional safeguard to the public that they are getting value for money, as well as whether it will reduce the amount of firewood which will be available for them, and whether it will adversely affect the re-afforestation programme of the Government. Taking the first of those points, I would say that the quality and the quantity of the firewood is as important as the actual weight, and the weight itself, as has been already mentioned in this and other cases, depends an whether the wood is dried out or wet—and, as your Lordships know, there can be a very big
934
difference. Finally, surely the buyers are the people who can best deal with this matter in their own way, by not buying from sellers who do not provide them with what they want. I understand that the Forestry Commission have made representations to the Government on this proposal, and I appeal to the Government to examine the matter further.
LORD BROCKET: May I add a word to what has been said by my noble friend Lord Hawke and by the noble Duke who has just spoken? As a very small woodland owner in comparison to the noble Duke, I would say that this is a very complicated Bill in any case, and when customs have grown up, not only over the last few years but more or less over the centuries, as regards the sale of firewood and the sale of wood for replanting, it is most important that we should not pass a paragraph in this Bill which, quite possibly, may be unenforceable in these local country districts. I do not want to say any more. The noble Duke who has just spoken probably knows more about forestry and its ancillary industries, such as the firewood industry, than anybody else, with the exception of the Forestry Commission; and, as a small woodland owner, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take into account what has been said, and will not pass a Schedule to this Bill which will probably be unenforceable in the countryside in the future and will bring the Bill into disrepute.
7.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: There are a number of Amendments on the Marshalled List about wood fuel—Nos. 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167 and 168—and three of these are Government Amendments. In their consultations on the Hodgson Report, the Board of Trade did not learn of the many practical objections which surround the implementation of the Committee's recommendation. These objections have revealed themselves since the Bill was introduced, and some of them have been stated by my noble friend Lord Hawke and by the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry. I think my noble friend, Lord Hawke, was right in saying that the three Government Amendments which were put down

935
after Second Reading would not really remove these objections simply by excluding wholesale sales, because it seems, in the light of further evidence, that even in the case of retail sales (which in country districts, anyhow, can involve large quantities of wood fuel of varying types) the application of this Schedule would still create serious difficulties. The Schedule would, of course, require a sale to be by net weight and in one of a limited number of specified quantities, except that, in certain parts of Scotland to be named in an Order, wood fuel could be sold by the half yard or a multiple of half a cubic yard. Part III of the Schedule also provides for a special form of document to accompany deliveries.
The Government think it would be best for the matter to be reconsidered, and we hope to bring revised proposals before the House at the Report stage. It seems likely that wood fuel may need to be dealt with separately from other forms of solid fuel. Our aim, I think, should be to extend to all areas the protection of the consumer buying wood fuel in much the same way as he buys any other goods, while at the same time not interfering unduly with the consumer who lives near woodland and forest areas and who buys in large quantities, often at a very low price, from some local grower or from the Forestry Commission. It will not be easy to reconcile these aims, but I think we must try.
Some noble Lords have suggested specific provision in the Bill for sale by various customary methods and measures like the cord or the lorry load. I should hope, in view of what I have said, that your Lordships will not press these points at this stage; they might have numerous repercussions on the Bill—for instance in the First Schedule. I do not intend to move the three Government Amendments which are on the Paper, and if those of your Lordships who have put down other Amendments on the subject will not move them, I think the best course would be for your Lordships to allow the Government to see whether it is possible to arrive at some proposal which will meet the varied and not easily reconcilable needs of the various consumers of wood fuel.
7.52 p.m.
LORD SILKINIt would be very ungracious on our part if we objected to the Government's promise to give further consideration to this question, when they have promised to give so much further consideration to many of the Amendments we have put forward on this side of the Committee. But I do feel that I ought to enter acaveat about some of the arguments put forward. One was that the buyer has to look after himself—caveat emptor. The whole of this Bill is based on the assumption that the buyers need protection. I should have thought the buyer of wood fuel was certainly no exception. We are here to protect the consumer, and the buyer of wood fuel is in as much need of protection as anybody else.
Two other arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke (whether he was really serious about them, I do not know), were, first, that if we insisted on wood fuel being sold by weight, the seller had so many ways of cheating the buyer that it would really be futile; and, secondly, that the buyer would come out worse in the end. I do not like either of those arguments, especially when the noble Lord prefaces his remarks by telling us that, generally speaking, sellers of wood fuel are honest men. I felt that I ought to enter that protest. There may be good reasons why the Bill should be modified to meet the special case of wood fuel, and I certainly have not the slightest objection to the Government's looking at the thing again in the light of what has been said. But I cannot support in any way some of the arguments which have been put forward in support.
LORD HAWKE: I am grateful to my noble friend for his suggestion that he should withdraw his Amendments and reconsider the whole matter. May I just say, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the burden of my case was that the Bill would not protect the consumer because quality enters into it probably more than weight. I propose to withdraw my Amendment—
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Before the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, withdraws his Amendment, I should like to ask the Ministers whether in fact there was not a very considerable sale, prior to this Bill, of wood by

937
weight. In some districts many ordinary householders, who have suitable fireplaces to deal with this sort of fuel, buy it by the hundredweight—by the sack.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: That is one of the difficulties. We want to give protection to purchasers of that kind, but do not want to put an end to the sale of firewood direct from the forest to certain other kinds of consumers.
LORD HAWKE: I am going to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, and in that event I shall not move the others standing in my name which deal with this same subject. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 158.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SELKIN: I beg to move Amendment No. 158A. The purpose of this Amendment is quite clear: it is to get rid of these odd weights—namely, 42 lb. and 84 lb.—at which fuel may be sold. There seems to be no point in permitting fuel to be sold in units of 42 lb. and 84 lb. I have never heard of sales being carried out on that basis. Moreover, they are so near to 56 lb. and 112 lb. respectively that there is a danger of the purchaser being confused. I should feel very much happier if those weights were eliminated from the Bill. At any rate, I should be very grateful if the noble Earl would explain what is the purpose of putting in these odd weights. I beg to move.
Amendment moved.
Page 76, line 11, leave out "forty-two, fifty-six or eighty-four" and insert "or fifty-six."— (Lord Silkin.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The changes in the existing legal weights proposed in this Bill are the result of developing and changing custom. This Amendment concerns paragraph 2 of the Schedule, which requires solid fuel to be sold only by net weight and in certain specified quantities. The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be to reduce these quantities to 7 lb., 14 lb., 28 lb., 56 lb., 1 cwt. and multiples of 1 cwt.
As has already been made clear in connection with some of the Amendments to the Fifth Schedule, the Government feel that specified weight requirements ought not to be too rigid and should be relaxed wherever possible. We believe that they should be continued in the case of solid fuel, as is done by this
938
paragraph; but in view of the growth of pre-packing in sealed paper bags clearly marked with the weight of their contents we believe that a departure from the normal principle, where each successive quantity is double its predecessor, could be safely made. The two quantities, 42 lb. and 84 lb., which this Amendment would delete from the clause, were specifically included to meet the requirements of the trade. Under paragraph 3 of this Schedule, the containers will have to be marked in a manner to be prescribed in regulations made by the Board of Trade, and the Government are satisfied that ample protection can be given to consumers without the need for a reduction in the quantities specified. Also, we do not think that the permitted weights will be close enough together to cause confusion.
LORD SILKIN: Could the noble Earl say whether the trade has asked that they should be permitted to sell in units of 42 lb. and 84 lb.? I have been a purchaser of fuel all my life. I do not say that I bought in those quantities, because have never heard of a quantity of fuel being sold in units of 42 lb. You can buy 14 lb. of fuel, or 28 lb., or half a hundredweight, or 1 cwt.; but 42 lb. is an odd figure, and, as I said, it is possible to confuse 42 lb. and 56 lb. While I do not want to press the noble Earl at this moment, since he is looking at this whole question of wood fuel, will he assure himself that the trade wish to go on being allowed to sell at these odd weights?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SILKIN: This Amendment would exempt lorry loads of fuel delivered to large institutions. It is not likely that the normal householder would buy a lorry load of fuel, but in the case of deliveries to institutions fuel is normally sold on the basis of weight obtained from the weighbridge and there is a regular tradition of checking weights at these institutions—hospitals, schools, hotels and so on. It would seem unnecessary in these cases, and indeed inconvenient, that they should be required to buy in terms of exact units of weight as laid down in the paragraph. The weight of a lorry load is usually an odd amount of tons, hundredweights and

939
pounds, and as the Bill stands they would be committing a breach of the law if they sold in these odd weights. I suggest that it would be quite safe to exempt from the provisions of this Schedule lorry loads of the character described in my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 15, at end insert—
("() coal, coke or any solid fuel derived from coal or of which coal is a constituent which is delivered for sale in whole lorry loads ").—(Lord Silkin.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment as drafted would allow whole lorry loads of coal, coke, or other solid fuel derived from coal, or of which coal is a constituent, to be sold otherwise than by net weight. If this were accepted, it would put the clock back 70 years and permit deliveries of coal and coke—which under existing law, and under the Bill as it is at present drafted, would be made in specified quantities or at least by net weight—to be made without reference to weight at all. The opportunities for fraud in such a situation would be unlimited, and it is certain that the change would be unwelcome even to big industrial consumers who are able to protect their own interests much more readily than the average householder.
From what the noble Lord said, I think that the Amendment may be designed to exempt whole lorry loads of coal from the need to be made up in one of the specified quantities. If this is the noble Lord's intention, the Amendment is unnecessary, because such an exemption is already provided in the proviso to paragraph 3 of the Schedule, which reads:
"Provided that fuel made up in a container only for ease of handling as part of the load of a vehicle or ship shall be exempted from the requirements of this paragraph if the whole of that load is being delivered to a single buyer."
I think that achieves the noble Lord's purpose.
LORD SILKIN: It certainly looks like it. I should like to look at this again, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not know whether the noble Lord would agree that this might be a convenient time to break off. I think that it was agreed through the usual channels that we should sit until 8 o'clock on this Bill, and then take the Trustee Investments Bill. It is now five past eight. We have made very good progress indeed, and if your Lordships will agree, I will move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume. —(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

TRUSTEE INVESTMENTS BILL [H.L.]
8.5 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
New powers of investment of trustees
1.—
(3) No provision of any Act or instrument relating to the bowers of the trustee which was passed or made before the passing of this Act shall limit the powers conferred by this section, but those powers are exercisable only in so far as a contrary intention is not expressed in any Act or instrument so relating which is passed or made after the passing of this Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words from "provision" down to the first "made" and to substitute:
"relating to the powers of the trustee contained in any instrument (not being an enactment or an instrument made under an enactment)".
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, if I may have your Lordships' indulgence, I think that it would be convenient if we considered the argument on Amendments Nos. 1, 8, 9, 10 and 11 on the Marshalled List. The effect of the First Amendment would be that subsection (3) of Clause 1 will read:
"No provision relating to the powers of the trustee contained in any instrument (not being an enactment or an instrument made under an enactment) made before the passing of this Act shall limit the powers conferred by this section, but these powers are exercisable only in so far as a contrary intention is not expressed in any Act or instrument so relating which is passed or made after the passing of this Act".
The object of the Amendment and, as your Lordships will see, of subsequent Amendments is to bring the Bill into line with Acts in which the special position of certain organisations was carefully considered recently by Parliament.
Further examination of the effect of subsection (3) of Clause 1, as it stands unamended, has revealed that the powers given by the Bill would be conferred Inappropriately on certain bodies of trustees. These are bodies whose powers of investment are conferred by an enactment or by an instrument under an enactment.
May I take as an example the investment powers of the Special Investment Departments of the Trustee Savings Banks? They are governed by Section 2 of the First Schedule to the Trustee Savings Bank Act, 1958. These powers of investment are narrower than those authorised by the present Trustee List and are confined almost entirely to Government and Government-guaranteed stocks and colonial stocks. Since this statutory provision was made before the passing of the Bill, subsection (3) of Clause I will override it. Such a widening of the powers of investment of the Special Investment Departments is not appropriate. There are two reasons for that. First, the matter was considered by your Lordships' House a short time ago, and, secondly, in the case of savings banks, their purpose is to maintain capital on a pound for pound basis and they are guaranteed by the Exchequer.
The effect of the Amendment will be to exclude from the overriding consequences of subsection (3) all provisions in enactments or in instruments made under enactments relating to the powers of trustees and to maintain unaltered the present investment powers of such trustees. I have already explained to your Lordships the position with regard to the powers which have been specially looked at by Parliament. That is the position under the first Amendment.
In the case of my noble friend Lord Conesford, who I know was particularly interested in subsection (3) of Clause 3, where the Act is mentioned, I want to say that I carefully considered that point. Your Lordships will remember we discussed subsection (3) of Clause 3 on his Amendment. I want to make clear that Clause 1 (3) deals with pre-Bill instru
942
ments which are narrower than the Bill. Clause 3 (3) deals with a particular kind of pre-Bill instrument which is to be anything wider than the Bill, because considered in terms it would authorise investments and equities without compliance of Clause 2. Both Clause 1 (3) and Clause 3 (3) secure that the trustees will get the Bill powers, subject to the Bill conditions. I mention that in case some noble Lords might be worried.
I go on to Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10, which are the Amendments to Clause 6 and are entirely cognate. Your Lordships will see that the effect of the Amendments in Clause 6 would be
"Where any persons, not being trustees, have a statutory power of making investments which is or includes power

(a) to make the like investments as are authorised by section one of the Trustee Act, 1925, or section ten of the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921, or

(b) to make the like investments as trustees are for the time being by law authorised to make,

however the power is expressed, the foregoing provisions of this Act shall with the necessary modifications apply in relation to them as if they were trustees."
The reason for the change is that as at present drafted Clause 6 would extend the powers conferred by the Bill to bodies other than trustees whose present investment powers are statutorily confined to the full range of authorised trustee investments. But it will also extend the full powers conferred by the Bill to bodies other than trustees whose present investment powers are confined to some but not all of the investments authorised by the Acts of 1921 and 1925. That is achieved by the words, "or any provision of those sections", as appear on page 6, at line 31, in the present draft of the Bill.
The reason for this is that the particular body intended to be covered is the persons authorised to invest the funds of the Duchy of Lancaster. In case any of your Lordships have not immediately in mind the persons who are authorised to invest the funds of the Duchy of Lancaster, I would tell your Lordships that investments shall be made in the names of at least three persons to be named by the Chancellor of the Duchy, and the present three include the Attorney-General of the Duchy, my learned friend Sir Edward Milner

943
Holland. So I do not think your Lordships will have any doubt as to the competence of these persons. I never like using terms which may be a mystery to your Lordships. This body may at present invest only in the securities in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section one of the 1925 Act: that is, United Kingdom Government securities. The Government have agreed that the full powers of the Bill shall be granted. It was considered, however, that any other body with similar powers granted by or under a Statute should be entitled to a similar widening of its investment powers; accordingly the necessary provision was drafted in general terms.
Again, we had a further consideration of the effect of the provision, and it has been found that the extension of the full powers under the Bill to a number of bodies having narrower powers than the present Trustee List would be inappropriate. I have taken the example of savings bank funds. Another example would be building societies. As your Lordships remember, in the case of building societies we examined them very carefully a short time ago, and there we have again the double reason that powers are given by a carefully considered Statute, and there is the same pound for pound basis, and, of course, a need for liquidity.
In order that the matter shall not be left so that those authorised to invest the funds of the Duchy of Lancaster are in a position which no one else can attain, I intend to move a new clause, which is Amendment No. 11, and that fits in with the Amendments which I hope your Lordships will make to subsection (3) of Clause 1 and subsection (1) of Clause 6. These Amendments secure that the powers conferred by the Bill do not apply indiscriminately to persons whose investment powers are less than the powers of trustees. But it may well be that some of these persons could demonstrate the need for wider powers, either in whole or in part, and the purpose of this clause is to permit such powers to be granted in appropriate cases. That names, as your Lordships will see, those authorised to invest the funds of the Duchy of Lancaster. It also empowers the Treasury to specify other persons to whom the clause is to
944
apply. These persons must have their investment powers conferred on them by or under any enactment.
LORD PETRICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble and learned Viscount? Do I understand that these powers are to be conferred by the Treasury?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Will the decision of the Treasury be absolute or will it be in a form which will be subject to an Affirmative or a Negative Resolution of this House and the other place?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I considered that point, because I always consider carefully whether there should be a Parliamentary control. But this is an enabling power which other people in the same position will ask for, and then the Treasury will, in a suitable case, make an order. What is in mind is that people who have not got the powers will ask for the powers, and in a suitable case the Treasury will give them. It was because there were enabling powers that I did not think it a case for the ordinary need for Parliamentary control to apply. That is the position.
I shall be pleased to answer any questions that your Lordships may care to put to me, but I think if you consider all the Amendments together you will see that we have dealt with the special positions like those of trustees of savings banks; we have dealt with those who are not trustees; and we have left the position in such a way that if there is any doubt as to whether persons are trustees or not, they will still have the right to apply to the Treasury. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, leave out from ("provision") to ("made") in line 15 and insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD PETRICK-LAWRENCE: May I ask the Lord Chancellor one further question? Naturally it is a little difficult for any one of us who bears this for the first time to understand precisely what the intention is. What I understand is that there will be certain limited persons who, but for the Amendment that is now being moved, would have been given the same privileges as trustees in general are given by the other clauses of this Bill. But as

945
a result of this Amendment they will not automatically get them. They can, however, apply to the Treasury and the Treasury can decide either to grant or withhold them. But the Treasury cannot in any case give them greater powers than those that this Bill confers upon trustees in general.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may say so, the noble Lord has got it absolutely right, and I aim sure he will appreciate the reasons. There are people in a special financial position which I described very shortly, but I think it is quite clearly understood.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.22 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment deals with a very short point in Scottislh law. There is a rule of the law of Scotland which is sometimes expressed by saying that a will is deemed to have been made at the date of the testator's death. Although it would be difficult to argue that in the context of subsection (3) of Clause 1 of the Bill "made" falls to be construed in this slightly artificial way, it is desirable that any doubt should be forestalled. The Amendment makes it clear that the reference to the date of the making of an instrument, in the case of a Scottish will, is a reference to the date of its actual execution. The words "testamentary writing" would cover any codicil to the will. This is little more than a drafting point and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 19, at end insert "For the purposes of this subsection any rule of the law of Scotland whereby a testamentary writing may be deemed to be made on a date other than that on which it was actually executed shall be disregarded.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Restrictions on wider-range investment]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 can be taken together. Amendment No. 3 is designed to meet the criticism voiced during Committee stage about the inflexibility of the provisions for making payments out of the fund. As at present drafted the Bill requires a trustee to take equal sums from each part of the fund, or, failing that, to make as soon as may be an adjustment between the two parts of the fund. It was repre-
946
sented during Committee that to give effect to this procedure trustees might be forced to sell equities when market conditions happened to be bad. The effect of the Amendment is to allow a trustee to postpone the sale for a period of up to one year. The choice of period is necessarily a somewhat arbitrary one. One year has been chosen because it should be sufficiently long to tide trustees over a temporary bad patch in the market without being so long as to undermine the basic principle of the whole scheme. It is also the same period as that suggested by my noble friend Lord Hawke in his proposed Amendment.
The Amendment works both ways—that is to say, it permits the trustee to postpone sales from either the narrower-range or wider-range part of the fund. It will, however, be of most use to the trustee who wishes to postpone a sale of wider-range investments. The trustee who wishes to avoid a sale of narrower-range investments when market conditions are unsuitable can, in fact, already do so by, for example, selling equities and making a compensating transfer of gilts from the narrower-range to the wider-range part of the fund. But there may be occasions when he will prefer to rely on the provisions of the Amendment. The parenthesis at the end of the Amendment is to deal with the case where the compensating part has depreciated after the taking out. I could give your Lordships an example, but I think it is fairly clear, and unless your Lordships press me on the point I will leave it there and move The Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 38, at end insert ("either(a)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for producing this Amendment, because I feel that this slightly increased flexibility will be of great value to executors and trustees, not only to meet the case of a bad market, but still more when the wider-range part of the fund contains land or shares in a private business. I think it would be in that respect that this twelve months liquidation might be most valuable, and I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 42, at end insert ("or

(b) if the amount by which the value of either part of the fund is reduced exceeds the amount provided for by the foregoing paragraph, that within twelve months the amount of the excess is made good to that part of the fund (or is made good as nearly as the value of the property belonging to the other part of the fund permits)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Duty of trustees in choosing investments]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the clause as drafted requires a trustee to obtain and consider expert advice
"at such intervals as appear to him appropriate, and in any case at intervals of not more than five years."
Your Lordships will remember that on the Committee stage an Amendment was moved by my noble friends Lord Hawke and Lord Polwarth that the period mentioned should be reduced to two years. The Government resisted this Amendment on the ground that the period mentioned was intended to be no more than a long-stop. If, therefore, a two-year period were stipulated, it might come to be regarded as the norm, and many of your Lordships expressed views against that, as I heard. This might be too frequent for some trusts and would certainly be too infrequent for others. During the discussion in Committee there was clearly no unanimity about the appropriate period for this purpose.
In replying to the debate, my noble friend Lord Dundee said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 227, col. 400]:
"Possibly the best course might be to omit any mention of a specific period and lay the onus of deciding when to obtain advice fairly and squarely upon the trustees. After all, trustees are not compelled to accept any advice which they get. They are required under the Bill to take advice, without being compelled to accept it. Maybe it would be more reasonable to lay upon trustees the duty of obtaining and considering this advice at such intervals as appear to them to be appropriate, without laying down any period at which they should exercise that duty."
This is what the Government Amendment now proposes. By removing any mention of a specific period the difficulties mentioned above are avoided. At the same time the wording of the provision is strengthened by placing more positively on the trustee the duty of
948
determining the intervals at which a review is necessary having regard to all the circumstances, and in particular to the nature of the investments. After the expressions of opinion by many of your Lordships, speaking as trustees, as to the period which you would think right, it clearly is a matter which a good and reasonable trustee should consider very carefully. We thought that it would not only meet your Lordships' views but be the solution of the problem if we placed the duty on the trustees. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 44 leave out ("So long as a trustee retains") and insert ("A trustee retaining").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD HAWKE: I think that is probably the wisest course.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is the other half of the point which I have just been putting to your Lordships.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 45, leave out from ("aforesaid") to end of line 2 on page 6 and insert ("shall determine at what intervals the circumstances, and in particular the nature of the investment, make it desirable to obtain such advice as aforesaid, and shall obtain and consider such advice accordingly.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Application of Act to persons, other than trustees, having trustee investment powers]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is one of the group of Amendments which I dealt with together, in moving the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 27, leave out from ("includes") to ("authorised") in line 29 and insert ("power—

(a) to make the like investments as are"). —(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1) (a) to leave out "or any provision of those sections". The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, would your Lordships allow me to save

949
a little time by moving this Amendment and the next two Amendments together? If so, I would explain that these are the remainder of the group with which I dealt when moving the first Amendment.
Amendments moved —
Page 6, line 31, leave out ("or any provision of those sections")
Page 6, line 32, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

("(b) to make the like investments as trustees are for the time being by law authorised to make").

After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Application of Act in Special cases
(".—(1) In relation to persons to whom this section applies—

(a) subsection (3) of section one shall apply in relation to any Act which was passed or any instrument under an enactment which was made before the passing of this Act as it applies in relation to any other instrument so made;

(b) subsection (1) of the foregoing section shall apply where the power of making investments therein mentioned is or includes a power to make some only of the investments mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection.

(2) This section applies to—

(a) the persons for the time being authorised to invest funds of the Duchy of Lancaster;

(b) any persons specified in an order made by the Treasury by statutory instrument, being persons (whether trustees or not) whose power to make investments is conferred by or under any enactment other than one relating to trustees generally.

(3) An order of the Treasury made under the foregoing subsection may provide that the provisions of sections one to five of this Act (other than the provisions of subsection (3) of section one) shall in their application to any persons specified therein, have effect subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be specified,")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
8.32 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved, after Clause 8 to insert the following new clause:
Saving for power of Courts
"Nothing in this Act shall affect the powers or practice of the Court in giving relief under section fifty-seven of the Trustee Act, 1925, or section one of the Variation of Trusts Act, 1958, or cause the Court to grant less freedom in investment than it would have granted if this Act had not been passed."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am moving this Amendment to meet the
950
problem to which I drew attention during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill and subsequently in Committee. It contains, I think, nothing which conflicts in any way with the declared intention of Her Majesty's Government. I would remind your Lordships of one sentence used by my noble friend the Earl of Dundee in reply to me in Committee. He used these words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 227 (No. 21), col. 283]
"I agree with my noble friend that there are some trusts in which it might be right to have a larger proportion in equities, and it is not our intention that the practice of the courts should in any way be made uniform or changed or modified by the provisions of this Bill."
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor confirmed this in one or two of his speeches.
I described in my earlier speeches some of the more generous schemes allowed by the court under the Acts which I have cited in my Amendment. My noble and learned friend Lord Cohen thought that I had perhaps exaggerated the freedom of investment in ordinary shares recently allowed by the court, but there is no doubt that in some cases more generous treatment has been given by the court than is allowed by the provisions of the Bill.
Since I heard the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Cohen, I have refreshed my memory by looking at some of the decided cases. In the case reported in The Times of March 14, 1959, very wide new investment powers were given in a case arising under a marriage settlement as recent as 1933, powers which were to apply so long as the bank trustee remained the sole trustee. In that case, Mr. Justice Vaisey made an order permitting investment in any securities quoted on a recognised stock exchange in any part of the world, subject to certain limited exceptions; or in land in England or Wales. The exceptions included certain partly paid shares, shares in companies of less than £500,000 paid-up capital, and Government or local-government securities of any foreign country, except the United States of America, outside the British Commonwealth. Your Lordships will see how wide are the powers that have, in fact, been granted by the courts.
It is clear that if the Government wished there to be no interference with

951
the powers and practice that the courts exercise in this matter, some such Amendment as that which I now move would be required, unless it could be stated that there was no risk whatever of the Bill, without the Amendment, being held by the courts to affect their practice. I do not think that any lawyer would say that there was no such risk. The courts would be very liable to say that they knew from a recent declaration of Parliament the sort of power that it was desirable to give to trustees. Therefore they might well refuse an application for a wider investment clause in the absence of some such Amendment as I am moving. I am therefore moving it because it is desirable to preserve the powers and practice of the court. Her Majesty's Government have themselves said that they do not wish these powers to be interfered with and there is a risk of what the practice would be if there were no such Amendment as this. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Conesford.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have considered this matter. 1 do not think there is any need to underline the existing powers of the court, and I am not quite happy about the last part of the Amendment where it speaks about causing the court
"to grant less freedom in investment than it would have granted if this Act had not been passed".
However, I am very anxious to meet the point which my noble friend Lord Conesford has put with such clarity, and I will give an undertaking that before the Bill passes to another place I will consult the Judges of the Chancery Division about this matter. If they see no objection to the proposed new clause, even though it is not, strictly speaking, necessary, we will consider moving an Amendment on similar lines. I hope that my noble friend will be satisfied with this undertaking at the moment.
LORD CONESEORD: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend. On that assurance I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule [Manner of Investment]:
PART II
Narrower Range Investments Requiring Advice
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved, after paragraph 4, to insert:
"5. In any bonds issued or guaranteed by the Government of Canada."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment seeks to add to the securities permitted in the narrower range any bonds issued or guaranteed by the Government of Canada. Noble Lords may well think that these bonds are so obviously suitable for investment by trustees that I must be wrong in thinking that they are not already included, but I think that that is not the case. Canadian bonds—or nearly all Canadian bonds—are at present excluded by the expression in line 28, on page 9, of the Bill:
"being securities registered in the United Kingdom".
If my interpretation is right, that excludes the great bulk of Canadian Government securities and all Canadian Government securities that are expressed in Canadian currency. Indeed, I believe that it leaves only one small Canadian Government issue available for trustees under the Bill. That is the Canada 3⅓ per cent. registered stock 1958–63. That, when originally issued, was £10 million, of which I think only some £700,000 is outstanding. Therefore the Bill as it stands virtually prevents trustees from investing their funds in the narrower range in Canadian Government securities. I cannot think that that is reasonable.
Of course, if the Government accept my Amendment so far as it goes, but would prefer it if it were made far wider so as to include, for example, the bonds of the Commonwealth of Australia, needless to say I should have no objection to such an extension. The problem which I have just mentioned does not apply so much in the case of Australia, because, of course, many of the Australian Government securities are available to trustees under the Bill but in the case of Canada they are not. I think it would be very strange indeed if the Government insisted that almost all bonds of the Government of Canada should remain outside the list of narrower-range investments, and I cannot think that they will seriously urge

953
that it may not be an actual advantage that trustees should be able to invest in at least one type of security which is not wholly dependent on one single currency. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 32, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Conesford.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment raises a point which may take me a little time to place before your Lordships. I hope your Lordships will grant me the indulgence. The effect of the Amendment, as my noble and learned friend said, would be to enable trustees to invest in Canadian Government or Government-guaranteed bonds issued and registered in Canada or anywhere in the world, provided that payment of interest and repayment of capital were made in sterling. If your Lordships would be good enough to look at the paragraph to which my noble and learned friend has referred, paragraph 4 of Part. II of the First Schedule to the Bill, your Lordships will see that that authorises the trustees to invest in the securities of the Canadian Government as well as of any other Commonwealth Government, provided that they are fixed interest bearing and were issued and registered in the United Kingdom. The Schedule does not, however, authorise securities guaranteed by the Canadian or any other Commonwealth Government, but it may well cover a number of securities guaranteed by Governments, since paragraph 4 also extends to Commonwealth public and local authorities. Your Lordships will see that paragraph 1 of Part IV of the Schedule would further limit the securities to those on which the repayment of principal and payment of interest was in sterling.
I am not sure how far my noble and learned friend has considered the effects of paragraph 1 of Part IV of the First Schedule, but any case I should like Ito put these points to him. Paragraph 4 of Part II of the First Schedule covers the securities of the Canadian Government as well as those of other Commonwealth Governments, and to this extent the Amendment is unnecessary for the type that I have described. To the extent that bonds issued by Commonwealth Governments are prohibited as trustee investments by virtue of the rules
954
about issue and registration in the United Kingdom and about payments in sterling, there is, as my noble and learned friend conceded by the latter part of his case, no defensible ground for singling out Canada as an exception. There is also no ground for authorising exceptionally the bonds guaranteed by the Canadian Government. But if the major point he has in mind is that the limitations about Commonwealth Government stocks having to be issued and registered in the United Kingdom and having to be repaid, and so on, in sterling are too narrow, I would point out that they, of course, apply generally and not only to Canada.
But I should like my noble and learned friend to consider these points. First, paragraph 4 of Part II of the First Schedule is, to all intents and purposes, a modernised version of the power in the present Trustee List authorising trustees to invest in Colonial stocks issued and registered in the United Kingdom by Commonwealth Governments. It is considered that the continued acceptance of these investments, and the extension to securities of Commonwealth public and local authorities is justified, subject to the same limitations as to place of issue and registration. It is not considered that a widening of the scope of overseas investment to include the issue and registration of securities outside the United Kingdom would be reasonable. The requirements as to issue in the United Kingdom and repayments in sterling are necessary safeguards against exchange and transfer risks, and the requirement that securities should be registered in the United Kingdom provides an additional safeguard. If there is no Registrar of the stock within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom courts it is more difficult for a stockholder to take action in the event of injury to his interests.
I only make the general point that the range of investment authorised by the Sill is very wide, and I do not think the omission will be a very serious loss to trustees. I should be grateful if my noble and learned friend would consider these arguments, and if he still feels they are not compelling to him, if he would be kind enough to write to me I will see that the point is reconsidered by the Treasury and by my right honourable friends who are considering these matters in another

955
place. But at the moment that is our difficulty. I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, but I will very willingly look at any arguments he produces against those which I have advanced.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his reply. He is quite right in thinking that I had overlooked the necessity of a consequential Amendment to paragraph 1 of Part IV of the Schedule, and I gladly accept his undertaking to consider the matter further if I write to him and state the case. I also greatly hope that this matter may excite some interest in another place. In those circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.50 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER LORD GRANTCHESTER moved, in paragraph 3, to add to sub-paragraph (a):
"unless it is carrying on in Great Britain insurance business of a class specified in subsection (1) of section one of the Insurance Companies Act, 1958, and no other business."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had hoped that an Amendment in possibly somewhat more general terms on this clause might have been moved during the Committee stage, for as the chairman of an insurance company with a capital of less than £1 million I must declare an interest in this particular Amendment. One million pounds of capital is probably a reasonably satisfactory assessment of status for an industrial company. But standards have very recently been laid down for insurance companies in the Insurance Companies Act, 1958. To introduce a new and different standard in this Bill seems unnecessary and undesirable. A number of companies excluded by this clause as worded feel rather aggrieved. They would be included in the investments authorised in the case referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. The Refuge, the Britannica and the London and Manchester are examples of companies with less than £1 million of capital, although the assets of these three companies exceed £350 million. This exclusion leaves trustees a very restricted choice in this type of investment. In this Amendment I am suggesting that the safeguards provided
956
by the Act of 1958 are more suitable than the provisions of this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 23, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Grantchester.)
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, would not the simplest thing be to leave the Bill as it is, and for the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and his fellow chairmen to make a scrip issue in all those cases to bring their capital up to £1 million?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the effect of the Amendment would would be that insurance companies, whether established in Great Britain or outside, doing most kinds of insurance business within Great Britain would escape from the limitation on investment to which my noble friend Lord Granchester referred. The noble Lord has argued that insurance companies are in a special position which makes the application of the rule unnecessary. Of course, I concede at once that insurance companies are subject to considerable public control under the Insurance Companies Act. But I would ask my noble friend to consider these points.
Whilst it is true that insurance companies are subject to greater public control than companies in general, and that their paid-up capital is often relatively small, does this of itself entitle insurance companies as a class to exemption from the general rule governing a minimum issued and paid up share capital? I do not think so, because the purpose of the rule is to set a standard whereby a trustee should invest only in companies whose shares have a sufficiently large market to command a representative price. This applies to insurance companies as much as any other.
Furthermore, the acceptance of exemption of one class of companies from the general rule because they can be shown to have special characteristics could, and probably would, lead to claims by others on similar or on other grounds. The range of investments authorised by the Bill is very wide. While it may be true that the securities of insurance companies which do not conform to the general rule might make suitable investments, a trustee will not be seriously at a loss through their omission.

957
There are other considerations which I am sure will occur to your Lordships. Your Lordships will see the words at the end of the Amendment: "and no other business". Obviously, that might include some and exclude others who would not be desirable in those circumstances. But on the general point that I have put to your Lordships, that the object here is that a trustee should invest only in companies whose shares have a sufficiently large market to command a representative price, I respectfully suggest to my noble friend that this would not be a suitable breach in that position when one considers the whole range of trustees. Therefore, I would ask him not to press the Amendment.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: I do not wish to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Second Schedule [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Third Schedule [Repeals]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may take Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 together, I would say that Amendment No. 15 is a drafting Amendment and Amendment No. 16 is a consequential Amendment. Perhaps your Lordships would allow me to move them both together. I beg to move these Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 13, line 1, leave out from beginning to second ("the") and insert ("for the words from 'stocks' to the end there shall be substituted ")
Page 14, leave out lines 30 to 32.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question Amendments agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 15):
8.58 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I now come to move the Third Reading of this Bill. The speediest glance round the House convinces me that the most popular way would be to deal with it formally. I had prepared a speech, I am afraid of some length, which dealt with the various points raised on the Committee stage. I am entirely in your Lordships' hands. I am quite prepared to give an undertaking that I will write to noble Lords who have
958
raised the various points and deal with the points by correspondence. On the other hand, if any of your Lordships feel that I ought to deal with them publicly I will do it. Unless anyone rises and desires me to deal with them publicly I shall move the Third Reading formally. Of course, if any one raises any point then I will answer it. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
8.59 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I feel that I cannot allow this Bill to pass from this House without saying just a few words, and I shall not be quite so self-denying as the noble and learned Viscount was in moving the Third Reading. I personally support, and have supported from the beginning, this Bill. I think lit is highly desirable that trustees should not be so limited as they have been in days gone by, hut probably there is a good deal of misapprehension in the country as to what this Bill does or does not do.
Trusts that have been already so ordered from the beginning that the trusteees can invest their money as they desire will not get any additional privileges under this Bill. Those persons who make wills in future will not be very seriously diverted by the course of this Bill, because it will still be possible, after the passing of this Bill, for any testator or person giving money on trust to put in the instrument a clause confining the securities which can be used for the investment of the trust in any way he likes, irrespective of any proposals that are made in this Bill. And this Bill will not change his disposition in consequence, because the Bill applies only to persons who have made those restrictions in times gone by. On the other hand, a person can in future, as in the past, say simply that he leaves it on trust; and then, of course, the clauses of the Bill will operate in his case.
Now how far are people likely to make use of these provisions? I believe that there again there is considerable doubt. Some people think it would be very much better to have money in equities than in gilt-edged securities; and provided they have already got money

959
in equities it may be a very good thing. But trustees and other persons should think very carefully about whether at this particular junction it is suitable or desirable that they should attempt to shift their property from gilt-edged securities, as it may be in at the present time, to some equities which they may think will render a better account of themselves in the remote future or even in the early future. That is a question not for me or for us here in this House, but for the advisers and stockbrokers who will see fit to advise people as to what they should do. It may well he (and it appears very likely to me) that it will be some time before it will be advisable for trustees to make any considerable change; but that, as I say, is a matter for others than ourselves to consider.
I should like to make one or two observations on the prospects. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Conesford, whose speeches have been very interesting, took the view that it was—I do not know that he went as far as to say "probable", but he seemed to think it was likely that trustee securities would go down even lower than they are at present, and that they would be of little value to a trust, partly because of the likelihood of their low market value, in terms of Stock Exchange values, and partly because of the possibility of inflation continuing for many years to come. I was reading only the other day a very interesting brochure in some financial magazine which pointed out that although it is quite true that over a period of history prices have tended to rise, looking back over the last 400 or 500 years there have been quite long periods when prices tended to fall. I can well remember that in the first thirty years of my life deflation persisted throughout nearly the whole of the period; so although it is quite true that in the long run prices will probably go up, it does not at all follow that in the short run that will be the case.
I turn now from considering these matters from the point of view of the trustee and the advantage for his beneficiaries, and wish to consider the position of other persons who have been invited, cajoled and prompted by patriotic reasons to invest in gilt-edged securities in years gone by. Here I think the Government have a very considerable responsibility. First of all, they have
960
brought about, largely through their decisions, considerable falls in the level of gilt-edged stocks. By creating a high bank rate, by making other restrictions and by practically compelling the banks to sell large masses of gilt-edged securities they have steadily depressed the value of Government funds. That is one thing. In the second place, in this Bill they are changing the basis upon which people were invited to invest. In days gone by people were invited to invest on financial grounds, taking into account the fact that all trustees, unless otherwise specified, had to invest in gilt-edged stocks. The Government have now, to the partial extent that is provided in this Bill, got rid of that proviso which was one of the inducements held out to investors to invest their money in gilt-edged stock.
I consider that unless Her Majesty's Government take some other step in order partially to counteract that effect they are guilty of a breach of trust with investors, many of whom are quite poor people who invested their money in good faith, on patriotic grounds, and find themselves left in the lurch at the present time. I have made certain suggestions at various times, all of which have been rejected by Her Majesty's Government. But it seems to me that, even if the long-dated stocks will ultimately recover from their present low market value, the one class of Government securities which does not conform to that pattern is the undated stocks. I hold, therefore, that the only just attitude towards patriotic investors in undated stocks is that the Government should fix some date in the future, say the year 2000, or even possibly later than that, at which these stocks should be redeemable at par. I do not think that would affect the present position. It would not involve the Government in any substantial money for the present and it might enable them to float a loan at a cheap rate in the future. But it would give some recompense to patriotic investors who have been let down by the Government.
Having said that, I do not propose to add anything else. I return to the view that the Bill is, on the whole, a good one—in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, said about only half of the trust investments coming under the changed provisions in the Bill.

961
But I believe the Government owe it to investors to take some steps to counteract the injurious effect that this Bill and other actions of the Government have had and are having on the price of securities.
9.10 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I will detain the House for only a few minutes, chiefly because of the mention of my name by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. I would assure him that in my objection to half the trust funds at the time of the division being held perpetually in fixed-interest bearing securities, I was not thinking only of Government securities; nor do I fear that there may be a further drop in their value at the present time. In fact, I said in one of my speeches in Committee that, if I could persuade my fellow trustees in any trust of which I was a trustee and which had funds available for investment at the present moment, I should undoubtedly purchase a British Government security standing well below par and due to be repaid at par in a few years time. My fear was and is a quite different one. I am not considering what the noble Lord himself just referred to as the present juncture; I am thinking of what may happen in the next 36 years: and 36 years have passed since we last had a Bill of this type setting out what trustees could invest in.
I do not take the view (and I doubt whether the noble Lord does) that in the course of the next 36 years there is no prospect whatever of sterling ever being in danger. I say that, if such a time ever arrived, trustees should not be precluded from taking the desirable action in the interest of the beneficiaries and the trust fund which all their advisers would tell them they ought to take, if they had the legal power. That was my criticism.
If a persistent critic of this Bill can make one final plea, I should like to make it. I shall not repeat any of the criticisms I-made on Second Reading or at the Committee stage. I would only say that that I know from conversations with men with the highest qualifications and business experience that my apprehensions are quite widely shared outside Parliament. Although I welcome this Bill in the sense that it is certainly better
962
than nothing. I do not believe that the Bill in its present form will bring the relief to small trusts that the Government desire, or that it will prove easily workable. I do not believe that it will be easy to find trustees able and willing to undertake the duties of trusteeship of the very settlements that the Government most desire to help. I would remind the noble Lord who has just spoken that, of course, the main settlements, the trustees of which it is desired to help, are ancient settlements where the settlor has long been dead. I would beg Her Majesty's Government, therefore, to consult some of the immensely experienced bodies which have expert knowledge of these matters; and, after such consultation, I would urge them themselves to table Amendments in another place or listen sympathetically to those that may be put forward.
9.14 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, and to my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford for what they have said. Some day, when I am considered fit to speak in a financial debate, which has not so far occurred to me during my 26 years in Parliament, I should very much like to debate with the noble Lord, Lord Pethiek-Lawrence, on the question of the use of bank rate and on the other questions which he put forward with such feeling and sincerity about the position of investors in non-dated stocks. But I think that your Lordships who are here would not regard to-night as perhaps the appropriate occasion for me to plunge for the first time into these financial seas.
I would only say this on his second point—which was that even by introducing this Bill, which he concedes is necessary, we have encouraged a process which he thinks is not healthy—that, of course, the difficulty of the change from the one class of investments to the other was a matter which every Government and, as an old Treasury Minister he will realise, the Treasury had in mind. But the broad answer is that it had come to a position when one had to consider it, certainly from the point of view of the beneficiary under the trust, and the person who is getting the income, but also from the point of view of the peace of mind of trustees regarding the remainder

963
of the capital in trust. My noble and learned friend Lord Conesford has put the other point of view with great force and sincerity: that it is not fair to trustees not to give them an absolutely free hand. The answer to that, which he himself made in the Committee stage, is that the Bill certainly improves the position enormously, and of course it gives them that free hand as to half the investment and it also gives them a freer, if still tied, hand with regard to the other half.
I would conclude on only this note. I am quite sure (and here, with respect, I join issue with my noble and learned friend) that, on the whole, there are thousands of trustees, and probably hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries, who are really grateful to the Government for having introduced this Bill. And, my Lords, there are very few people who regret its introduction. Again, in the course of the last quarter of a century that is a fate which has befallen very few Bills which I have seen introduced into Parliament by any Party in the State. I do not want to make extravagant claims, but I am sure that that is a claim which I can make without fear of contradiction. As I said, on the other points, including the point of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, on value (it is market value, but I shall write to him because he raised the point), I will write to noble Lords, if I may. Without taking up more of your Lordships' time, I will ask your Lordships to allow this Bill now to be read a third time.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ROYAL NAVAL COASTAL FORCES
9.19 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can state the reasons for the decline in numbers and organisation of the Coastal Forces of the Royal Navy, in view of their great importance in the event of either a local or global war and their use in training young officers to handle ships at sea. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel that at this late hour I should perhaps apologise to your Lordships for bringing this Question before you. On
964
the other hand, in my humble opinion I feel that it is quite unnecessary to try to push through the Weights and Measures Bill before Christmas, almost to the exclusion of many other important matters like the Bill we have just been discussing. That is as it may be. I have set down this Question in the hope that I may be able to persuade the First Lord of the Admiralty, in the forthcoming Navy Estimates next year, to divert a little money towards the re-establishment of Coastal Forces.
In the first place, I should like to remind your Lordships that at the present time the Royal Navy has only a skeleton squadron of three patrol boats, three Coastal Farces ships, operated by two crews based on H.M.S. "Dolphin" at Gosport. In fact, my Lords, there is virtually no Coastal Forces organisation in existence at all. A great deal of money was spent by the Admiralty on the "Brave" class between the years 1954 and 1958. Why not keep the momentum going? Otherwise, this money will certainly be wasted. There is no doubt that the Russians possess motor torpedo boats and motor gunboats in large numbers—I believe at least 400. These boats are of very modern design and are reputed to be fitted with gas turbine machinery. They are based not only in the Baltic and the Black Sea but also in the Far East; and a number of these vessels have been supplied to the Chinese Navy. These little vessels, these tiny ships, are frequently seen watching our minesweeping squadron off Hong Kong.
It has been argued that the British Navy do not now require these craft, as they did in the last war, because the Russian flotillas would be battled up in the Baltic and would be taken care of by N.A.T.O. forces. I believe this assessment of the position to be completely unrealistic. We have, in fact, as your Lordships know, built a large number of minesweepers which will certainly require protection from the coastal forces of the enemy, some of whom will undoubtedly operate outside the Baltic and will attack these sweepers. What is more we shall require these Coastal Forces for offensive operations against Russian shipping. Also, if we are to make use of coastal convoys in a conventional war we shall require these craft for their protection. Aircraft

965
never can and never will be able to give full protection to a convoy.
It is no use imagining that we are going to be able to build up Coastal Forces at short notice. After the First World War, the Coastal Forces organisation was closed down in 1922. In 1937 it was started again and remained very ineffective until well into the last war. At the later stages, however, MTB's were very effective indeed and were achieving the highest proportion of hits for torpedos expended in the Navy. And, last but not least, these vessels have a great potential as anti-submarine craft with the use of sonar buoys and horning weapons in conjunction with helicopters and aircraft.
My Lords, the facts are that we can never hope to have a sufficient number of frigates to cope with the Russian submarine menace, not only on the ground of cost but also because for some time to come we shall have insufficient highly skilled technicians to man more than the limited number of the very expensive and complicated large anti-submarine vessel which we have to-day. Their speed is little, if any, more than the modern submarine. I maintain that we must supplement these very expensive and valuable ships with smaller and cheaper vessels in large numbers: something rather larger than the present type of coastal craft—and, of course, with very high speeds. Two or three private shipbuilding interests already have plans available for such vessels, and these ships would be capable of mounting the heavy type new asdics. The argument that we must have a big ship in order to get value from modern anti-submarine procedure really does not hold water at all. A smaller and simpler ship can do all that is necessary. At one time we had a N.A.T.O. commitment for the supply of Coastal Forces. What has become of this arrangement? Have we withdrawn from it? And, if so, for what reasons has this been done?
There is another matter of great importance. I think it is true to say that Coastal Forces are invaluable for providing a first-class training in command for the young naval officer. Gaining command at an early age, he is able to develop qualities of leadership and is taught to think and act quickly. At the same time he can obtain technical training, in torpedoes, gunnery, navigation
966
and so on—in fact the lot—far more quickly than he would on a larger ship. But above all, it teaches him to understand the principles of operating warships against the enemy—an operation which is much more difficult to learn when he is in a larger ship. Not only does this excellent training apply to officers, but it also applies to the ratings. It gives them a wide training outside their normal ship experience. It makes them self-confident, alert and altogether far more efficient seamen.
The modern Coastal Forces are a great advance on the war-time craft. A maximum speed of 50 knots is now obtainable, and a cruising speed of 45 knots, with a range of 400 miles. But what has now become of great importance is the extended range of 2,000 miles which is now possible at slow speed. It means that these powerful little warships, with a suitable mother ship, can operate far from their home bases. It would not be difficult to think of many occasions when ten of these vessels operating overseas would be preferable to one frigate costing the same amount of money.
There is another very important aspect of Coastal Forces which should not be lost sight of. Coastal motor gunboats and motor torpedo boats are being bought by foreign countries, not only those within the N.A.T.O. Command but by others. Many of these smaller countries have always looked to us for their naval shipbuilding, and they rely on the Royal Navy to do their development for them. This, of course, is now no longer the case, and these countries are going elsewhere for their little ships, with the result that valuable export orders are being lost from this country to Germany and to Norway. My Lords, unless we maintain the specialised shipbuilding knowledge in this country, we shall have no base on which to expand our Coastal Forces in an emergency.
I hope that the First Lord of the Admiralty will give serious consideration to what I have put before your Lordships this evening. I have drawn attention to this important aspect of naval policy in this way as I was anxious that it should stand clear from any future debates on the Navy Estimates and in the earnest hope that the First Lord will see his way to embodying a Coastal

967
Force organisation when he presents the Navy Estimates next year. We must not forget that we can have nearly ten MTB's or MGB's for the cost of one frigate, and I would rather see one of these costly ships delayed in building than have an inefficient and inadequate Coastal Force. In my humble opinion, an important branch of the naval service has been neglected, and valuable experience has been lost, both to officers and to men; and I maintain that matters should be put right at the earliest possible moment.
9.28 p.m.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Teynham in the Question which stands in his name on the Order Paper. My noble friend has covered the subject so exhaustively and so ably that I will not waste your Lordships' time by covering the same ground. But, my Lords, all our long history of maritime and amphibious warfare shows the need for, and the important part played by, these small ships—which I think is, in many ways, a better name for them than "Coastal Forces". Surely, my Lords, the motor torpedo boats, the motor gun boats and the M.L.'s of World War II are by way of lineal descendants of the cutters, pinnaces, sloops and bombs of earlier campaigns. You have only to study the history of the campaigns of the Napoleonic wars; Hawke's close blockade of the French coast, culminating in the battle of Quiberon Bay; Nelson's blockade of the French, and Drake's blockade of the Spanish coasts, to learn of the very important part which all these small ships played in these operations. I hope very much that the First Lord will be able to tell us that the Admiralty are giving serious consideration to an early revival of Coastal Forces or small ships.
My Lords, I also hope that the Admiralty will approach, or perhaps are approaching, the problem with a fresh mind, so that the new generation of small ships may be both speedy and seaworthy. I hope, in particular, that special attention will be paid to ease of maintenance under active service conditions—and I emphasise the words "under active service conditions". In 1943, my duties on the staff of the Commander-in-Chief,
968
Mediterranean, involved me in an examination of the naval manpower situation in the Mediterranean. If my memory serves me aright, I found that no fewer than 14,000 men were employed in the Mediterranean, the majority of whom were shore-borne and were in aid of maintenance and repair of these craft. I feel that in this new generation of small ships very special attention must be paid to this maintenance and repair question under active service conditions.
I will not waste your Lordships' time by telling you of the special arrangements which we math to keep these craft serviceable and in operation during the Italian campaign; I am sure that the Admiralty have complete records of the special steps which were taken, and which were very effective. I do not think it is any use producing craft like this unless the question of maintenance and ease of repair under active service conditions is given high priority. In conclusion, my Lords, I would just say that, in my view, the time has come to give the small ships, and all they need, a very high priority in the queue for money.
9.32 p.m.
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, in rising to support the remarks of my noble friend in his Unstarred Question, I should just like to state that I understand that the Admiralty have spent between £2 million and £3 million, over a period of time, on the development of the "Brave" class of coastal forces, and that it is understood that they have a speed of between 10 to 12 knots over that of any other M.T.B. at the present time. I believe that H.M.S. "Brave Swordsman", during a demonstration some while ago, achieved a speed of 54 knots; and these craft have also a good sea-keeping ability. It seems a pity that while the Navy has put in so much time, work and research oil these craft, there should be any idea of closing the Coastal Forces and even the training squadron stationed off Portsmouth.
British technical skill appears, from all reports, to have great superiority over that of other countries, so far as the building of these craft is concerned, and it seems to me that we have a great chance of being able to sell these boats to uncommitted countries abroad, such as Turkey and Greece; but unless we incorporate some of them into our own training squadron, at least in the form

969
of prototypes, these small countries cannot possibly believe that we are being very serious in our outlook towards them. It is difficult for people, whether from the Admiralty or from firms working under contract to the Admiralty, to go out to try to sell these craft abroad, when people discover that our own Navy has not a great deal of interest in them. I think that is an important matter, because in all ways the Shipbuilding industry is in great difficulties, and this is a side of it which, it seems to me, needs a certain amount of support both from the Admiralty's point of view and from the point of view of the firms working for the Admiralty. With those few words I shall resume my seat.
9.35 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I am certain that nobody in the House will quarrel with the tribute which has been paid to Coastal Forces this evening. The little ships of the Royal Navy have had a long and honourable history and a fine record of achievement, more particularly, perhaps, in the last war, as my noble friend Lord Ampthill knows; and it will be plain to everyone that the decision to take nearly all our fast patrol boats out of commission in 1957 was one which was regretted by everybody in the Royal Navy, and not least by the Board of Admiralty. But, of course, there were very good reasons for doing it, and these were explained at the time.
Those who have spoken this evening have argued very convincingly for Coastal Forces. In the time that I have been at the Admiralty, I have heard many of your Lordships, and a great many people outside the House, argue even more convincingly for more ships of almost every kind and class. Some advocate more aircraft carriers, and a very good case they make out. Others want to double the strength of our anti-submarine forces; and I should be the last to deny that we should like more escorts. Others argue for more commando carriers, or assault ships, or conventional submarines, or nuclear submarines, or Polaris-type submarines. All of these would no doubt make a very valuable contribution to the strength of the Navy; but these things cannot be argued in isolation. There is a limit to our resources, and we cannot
970
have all of these things, however much we should like them.
First of all, may I say that I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, would agree with me that we should not be fighting a war against the Russians single-handed, without the help of any of our allies. Of course we should not. I cannot visualise any set of circumstances in which this could happen and in which we should be called upon to face the whole weight of the Russian attack without the aid of our N.A.T.O. Allies and, more particularly, the Americans. But even if this were not so, I cannot for one moment believe that the noble Lord is suggesting that we in this country, in our present economic position, could match ship for ship, in isolation, the enormous resources of the Russians. Even if it were physically possible to do so, we should soon be bankrupt and useless to our friends and Allies. It is, of course, a question of priorities and of striking the right balance between the various arms of the Navy to match the threats which we are most likely to have to face.
That is the special responsibility of the Board of Admiralty. In exercising it, a good many difficult and unpopular decisions have often to be taken. In 1957 when it was decided to reduce the size of the Armed Forces, the Admiralty were faced with just this problem. They had to consider the three-fold task which the Navy had to carry out: in peace time the maintenance of peace and stability all over the world; in limited war, the support of our land forces in action; and in global war, the provision of an effective contribution to the combined naval forces of the West. To meet these tasks, we had to be prepared to face in many directions at the same time. We had to have a fleet of mobile, versatile ships.
The value of Coastal Forces is not, of course, in dispute; but their value is virtually confined to one set of circumstances only—the circumstance of global war. With their comparatively restricted endurance, their usefulness in other kinds of war is at best problematical, and they can make no contribution to the winning of the cold war. They were, of course, valuable in training young officers to command, but since the decision was taken to run down Coastal Forces we

971
have increased the numbers of coastal minesweepers in commission, and these not only provide equally good and in many ways better independent commands for young officers, but have a much greater peace-time and limited war value. We came to the conclusion, therefore, that our resources would be better spent on ships with greater all-round capability, and, as it is, we have scarcely enough of these.
But, having said that, my Lords, it does not mean that the Navy has abandoned Coastal Forces altogether. The
972
threat which we are facing can take many different forms, and it would be rash to predict that we shall never have any more use for Coastal Forces. A nucleus has been kept alive with three fast patrol boats in the Trials and Special Service Squadron, so that this special art of sea warfare will not be lost. Another nine boats are in operational reserve to meet our N.A.T.O. commitments. We have, therefore, preserved the foundation on which the Force can be rapidly re-built if ever it will be needed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before ten o'clock.