HL Deb 20 December 1960 vol 227 cc905-40

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 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 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 STONHAMmoved 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 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- 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 LUCANmoved 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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. OSWALDmoved 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 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 LATHAMmoved, 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 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 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 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 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 FARINGDONmoved 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 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 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.

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.

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 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—

  1. (a)sand, including moulding sand, refractory sand, and any other sand used for industrial purposes;
  2. (b)gravel, shingle, ashes and clinker;

7.20 p.m.

LORD LATHAMmoved, 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 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 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 HAWKEhad 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 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 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 ofcaveat 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 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 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 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 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 SILKIN

It 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 acaveatabout 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 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 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 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.