§ 11.50 a.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.]
§ Seventh Schedule (continued):
§ [SOLID FUEL]
§ PART I
§ General
§ 4.—-(l) A local weights and measures authority may make byelaw, subject to the confirmation of the Minister of Power, for any of the following purposes, that is to say—
- (a) for securing that on any premises or vehicle within their area on or from which solid fuel available for purchase in a quanity of two hundredweight or less is sold or kept or exposed for sale there is displayed a notice specifying the price of the fuel; and
- (b) for prohibiting the sale on or from any such premises or vehicle of any such fuel at a higher price than that so displayed in relation to that fuel.
§ PART II
§ Weighing of solid fuel at buyer's request
§ 6. If the buyer of any solid fuel so requests before delivery thereof is completed, the seller or his agent shall cause the fuel to be weighed in the presence of the buyer at the time of, or as soon as reasonably practicable after, delivery, and any such weighing shall be carried out on weighing equipment stamped by an inspector; and if this paragraph is contravened, the seller shall be guilty of an offence.
§ LORD LATHAMThe Seventh Schedule deals with solid fuel. The purpose of this Amendment is to delete the limitation as regards quantities 974 which are 2 cwt. or less. I think that it will be found that this limitation has its origin in the fact that local authority by-laws made under the Act of 1889 were limited in this way. But we shall all admit that conditions have changed. At that time, coal was a very cheap commodity. For many years now it has been a dear commodity, and is becoming dearer, and it seems to us that a limitation which was appropriate some 50 years ago is now inappropriate and, in my submission, inapt. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 39, leave out from ("purchase") to ("is") in line 40.—(Lord Latham.)
§ THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE)This is an interesting point because this is the one occasion where the Bill touches upon the price-ticketing of goods, a matter which, in the Government's view, is really extraneous to a Weights and Measures Bill. This Amendment relates to paragraph 4 of the Seventh Schedule, which gives power to local authorities to make by-laws for securing the exhibition of price boards at premises and on vehicles from which solid fuel is sold, and also for prohibiting the sale of such fuel on or from such premises at a higher price than that displayed. These by-laws will be subject to confirmation by the Minister of Fuel and Power, while existing by-laws of these kinds, made under current weights and measures legislation, are preserved under the paragraph until they are revoked.
Weights and measures legislation relates only to one aspect of consumer protection, and the general question of quality and price protection is now being examined by the Molony Committee under wide terms of reference. Apart from the self-contained field of weights and measures, the Government wish to avoid piecemeal extension of legislation until the question of consumer protection can be considered as a whole, in the light of such advice as the Molony Committee eventually offers. The Government, therefore, feel that it would not be right to extend the powers given in the paragraph to a wider field than that to which they extend already. Under the Weights and Measures Act, 1889, under which the great bulk of these bylaws have been made, local authorities 975 are restricted to making by-laws regulating the sale of coal in quantities not exceeding 2 cwt. and this limitation has been included in this paragraph as it is now drafted. For these reasons, we should prefer not to extend a power which really is related to price and quality rather than to weight or measurement of coal.
§ LORD LATHAMThat is a formidable statement. I think, however, that it is correct to say that the Hodgson Committee did not approve of the limitation to be found in the by-laws made by local authorities. I may be wrong about that.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI think that the noble Lord is right, but I should like to look it up.
§ LORD LATHAMIn the circumstances indicated, and relying on the fact that the matter is being dealt with in a more general sense in the Molony Committee's Report, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD FARINGDONThis is an Amendment for which I would plead, as directed by the noble Earl yesterday, on conservative grounds. The aim of the Amendment is to preserve the law as it is and as it was laid down under the Act of 1889. The Bill provides that when goods are delivered, the buyer must request a weighing of the goods before the delivery is completed. This is an alteration of the law as it now is, and, I suggest, neither a good nor a practical one from the buyer's point of view. Because surely in the majority of cases the buyer will not suspect that he is being given short measure until delivery is completed, when he may notice that the particular delivery is apparently smaller in his cellar, or wherever the coal may be delivered, than is customary. Similarly, he may have the impression that there are fewer sacks after delivery than are apparent on the invoice. Those are things, I suggest, of which he is unlikely to become aware or to suspect until delivery has been completed. Therefore, I suggest that it would be better and fairer if this Amendment were adopted and the buyer was entitled to make his claim for reweighing to be on completion of delivery. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 11, leave out ("before delivery thereof is completed.")—(Lord Faringdon.)
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI am glad that this Amendment has been moved, because it is true that we are altering the existing law as established by the Act of 1899 and this gives me the opportunity of explaining the reasons why we feel it right that this course should be taken. First, let me explain what paragraph 6 of the Seventh Schedule does. It requires the seller or his agent to re-weigh solid fuel when so requested by the buyer, but this requirement is operative only if the request is made before delivery is completed. The weighing may be afterwards, but the request has to be made before delivery is completed and has been accepted; that is to say, the request may be made during the course of delivery, before all the coal has been shovelled out. Paragraph 6 of this Schedule, as at present drafted, while it relieves the merchant of responsibility of re-weighing after delivery has been completed, leaves such request to be dealt with by the inspector. Under the existing law the responsibility was on the merchant to do the re-weighing, even though the request to have it re-weighed was made after delivery had been accepted. What we feel is that the 1889 Act rather glossed over the practical difficulties of doing this, and we think we are putting it in this Schedule on a more rational basis.
The Obligation to re-weigh the coal whatever the circumstances is a rather unreasonable burden on merchants. In most cases, of course, they are reluctant, for fear of losing custom, to make any charges for this service, even when the time and labour required to re-weigh coal lying in a cellar would fully justify a charge. Moreover, the request to re-weigh solid fuel in a cellar, whether by the merchant or by the inspector, is often a waste of time, because there may have been a whole lot of fuel in the cellar immediately before the delivery of the load the weight of which has been questioned. In those circumstances, if it is the merchant who refuses to re-weigh, even when the refusal is accompanied by a reasonable explanation of what ought to be Obvious to a customer, the fact that the onus of making a refusal is on the merchant may make a customer 977 suspicious, and therefore the merchant may be reluctant to refuse.
Under this system the onus of saying whether it should be re-weighed or not is no longer on the merchant; it would be on the inspector if the request was made after delivery. The inspector is in a different position. He has considerably more authority than the merchant's employee, and is, moreover, in an independent position. If the inspector feels it right: to explain that it is useless to re-weigh the load of fuel that has been shot on the top of the remains of a previous load, what he says will normally be accepted by the customer and will not create suspicion that the coal merchant is trying to get out of his responsibilities. But if the Amendment were accepted, the merchant would be unable to refuse, because he would then commit an offence. He would have to carry out a re-weighing which he might know to be a waste of time; and the fact that, under paragraph 8 of the Schedule, he can recoup his costs is hardly a satisfactory recompense. While I am anxious to preserve everything hat is good in the 1889 Act, I hope your Lordships will agree that arils Schedule does rationalise and improve the position.
LORD FARINGDONI am not wholly happy about the noble Earl's reply. I see his point, and I think it is a valid one: probably it is more satisfactory that the weighing should be done by the inspector than by the merchant. On the other hand, I should have thought that just that particular change would require that the request should be made after delivery rather than during delivery, obviously within a limited time or in a comparatively short space of time. Most of us do not know off-hand where we can find an inspector; and presumably, if I understand the position, the request has to be made to him. If that is so, would it not be almost essential that the request should be made after delivery?
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEThe request can he made after delivery to the inspector, but the responsibility of weighing it is no longer on the coal merchant. I understand the noble Lord's point is that the customer might not be able to make a request: because he would not know where the inspector was. I do not know what can be done about that. If he wants to make a complaint, he ought to 978 be able to take steps to find a suitable authority to whom the complaint can be made and who will have to judge it.
LORD FARINGDONI am still in this difficulty. To start with, as I explained when I moved the Amendment, a buyer more often than not is unlikely to suspect short measure until the delivery is completed. In that case, under this Amendment, he has to make his claim before the delivery is completed; before the last sack has gone in, I presume, or something of that sort. But if he has not only to make a claim from the merchant, but somehow or other while the delivery is still continuing has to find an inspector and ask him to order a re-weighing of the delivery, it seems to me impossible to take advantage of this provision. I wonder whether I am being very stupid, but it does not seem to me that the noble Earl's answer has covered my point.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI quite see the noble Lord's point, but it seems to me that he is assuming that all the consumers in this country are incapable of getting hold of an inspector of weights and measures, or even knowing how to apply to him. Surely, if they are going to make a complaint, it is not unreasonable that they should take the not very difficult step of ascertaining where the nearest inspector lives.
LORD FARINGDONThe noble Earl has not got my point, which is two-fold. It is difficult, I think, for the buyer to make up his mind that he suspects a short measure and therefore wants a re-weighing. It is difficult for him to do that before the delivery is completed. That is my first point. My second point is that under the present law and under this Bill he can ask the merchant after delivery is completed. If it is the merchant he is asking it would not be so difficult, because before the last sack went in he has made up his mind, and there may be something to be said for terminating the period in which he must make his claim. Some such provision would have to be made, I agree, if he has to get hold of the inspector as well. Suppose he knows where the inspector lives. Unless he lives next door, which is unlikely, he has somehow to contact him or send somebody for him—and he may have nobody to send—before the delivery is completed.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEENo. Let us be clear about this. Under this Schedule, the responsibility is no longer on the coal merchant to come and re-weigh it unless the request for re-weighing has been made either before or during delivery. If the customer wants to have it re-weighed after delivery, having, as the noble Lord supposes, not discovered until some time after he has accepted delivery that he has been given short weight, he has all the 'time in the world to make a request for its being re-weighed, but the responsibility for doing it is not on the coal merchant, All the customer has to do if he does not know where the inspector lives is to ask the nearest policeman, because part of the duty of the police is to give information on that kind of thing. He has as much time as he likes to get in touch with the inspector and have the coal re-weighed. For the reason I gave in my original reply, I think that would be more satisfactory than making it compulsory for the coal merchant to come back at some later time and re-weigh it.
LORD FARINGDONMay I see whether I have it right? The request must be made to the merchant before the delivery is completed, but the weighing will be done by the inspector. Is that right?
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEENo. The weighing would have to be done by the merchant if the delivery had not been completed. If the merchant is delivering three or four sacks of coal and if, by the time he gets to the last sack, the customer who is watching thinks, "These sacks do not look big enough", that is, before delivery is completed, and the responsibility is still on the merchant to re-weigh it. It is only if, two or three days later, the customer thinks he has not had as much as he should that, instead of ringing up the merchant and saying "You will have to come hack and re-weigh this coal which I have had in the cellar for two or three days", he then asks the inspector.
LORD FARINGDONI thank the noble Earl. I think that makes it clearer. I do not know if any of my noble friends have anything to say, but I should be satisfied to withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF WOOLTONMay I I ask one question for information? It 980 seems to me that if you say to the person who is a potential rogue, "We give you notice before you make the delivery that we shall want this weighed", then you have a good preventive clause, because the man will say, "We cannot give short weight there, because they are going to insist on having it weighed." Is that the object of the clause?
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEThat is the position under the clause, and it has always been the position under the 1889 Act. If the customer gives notice before a delivery that he wants it re-weighed, the obligation always has been on the merchant, and under this Schedule it still remains on the merchant. It is a question of when the request for re-weighing was made. If the request is made in advance—that is before delivery has been completed—
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI do not know whether you would be certain you will not get short weight, but it would reduce the danger.
THE EARL OF WOOLTONSurely, if the merchant had been given notice that he was going to be tested, he would say, "We will not give short weight this time."
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEIt is to be hoped that his reasoning would proceed on those lines.
§ LORD SHEPHERDThere is still considerable doubt in my mind and, I think, in the minds of some of my noble friends on this matter. I think the noble Earl should have a look at the position again. What is the position of, say, a delivery of one sack of coal? It cannot be weighed unless an inspector is present. The inspector is in a weak position, because the merchant may say, "I delivered the correct weight. It now appears to be short, but I think the customer has taken a few lumps away." It would be very difficult to reconcile this.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEHe can say that now, but the responsibility for weighing is on him. He can say, "I have re-weighed but you have used some of it." He can use that in defence just 981 as much now as he will be able to under this Bill.
§ LORD LATHAMIt is clear from the discussion which has taken place that this provision is full of doubt as to its efficacy. It means that if the customer wishes to have it weighed by an inspector after delivery, he must not use any of the coal until the inspector comes along and weighs. Inspectors will not be so numerous that they will be waiting for telephone calls, either at the department of the local authority or, outside working hours, at home. I do not suppose the inspector will be required to stand by at home. If he is, it will involve a considerable expense upon local authorities in paying him to be there. It means that during all that time until the customer can get into touch with that inspector and get him along, he is inhibited from using any of the coal, however cold it may be and however much he may need it. I think the doubts which are in the minds of all of us on both sides of the Chamber indicate that the matter should be looked at again, because I am quite sure there is some difficulty here.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEThe noble Lord has now raised the question of whether there would be any great delay in getting the inspector to come and weigh the coal if short weight was suspected after delivery, compared with the length of time it would take to get to the coal merchant in a normal community to come and re-weigh it. I will certainly look into that question and see whether it has been taken account of.
LORD FARINGDONI have another point I should like to put. At what point under this Schedule would delivery he considered to be complete? Would it be when the buyer signed a receipt to say that he had received it? I know this is slightly technical, but it seems rather important.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI do not think this is a point on which there can be zany legal doubt. If it was the practice to sign a receipt for these kind of deliveries no doubt that would be the moment. If the customer was in the habit of accepting the coal without signing a receipt, no doubt the delivery would be completed at the time when it had been deposited in his cellar and 982 the lorry had departed. As the noble Lord said, that is a technical point, and I do not know that a general answer can be given to that kind of question. If it was a question which had to go to the courts, they might consider all kinds of circumstances which at the moment are not in the noble Lord's mind or in mine.
§ LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTERI understood the noble Earl to say that if, in the course of delivery of half a ton of coal, the buyer suspects the weight is not correct and he says to the coal merchant or the lorry driver, "I think you have given short weight and I Propose to ask the inspector to have it re-weighed", that would Abe sufficient.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEIn those circumstances he can demand that the coal merchant should re-weigh; it is not necessary to spend time sending for the inspector, if he makes the request before delivery is complete.
LORD FARINGDONI thank the noble Earl. I think he 'has reduced my doubts and I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Seventh Schedule (continued):
§ PART III
§ Carriage of solid fuel by road
§
LORD LATHAMmoved to add to paragraph 10:
(5) If the vehicle is carrying relevant goods for delivery to each of two or more. buyers or for delivery on sale or for the purpose of exposing or offering such goods for sale, those goods shall be made up in containers. If this sub-paragraph is contravened, the seller shall be guilty of an offence.
§ The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with Part III of the Seventh Schedule which is concerned with the carriage of solid fuel by road. The purpose is to remedy what. is regarded as a serious defect in this Part of the Schedule, in that it permits solid fuel carried in a vehicle in bulk to be weighed up subsequently in small quantities by coal carters, either in the street or on the premises of the buyers. In most cases this kind of weighing is done in the street and often when the buyer is not at home. 983 The procedure which it is proposed to permit provides endless opportunities, I submit with all respect to the coal trade, for dishonesty by carters. Moreover, dishonesty of this kind is almost impossible to detect by routine inspection and can in most cases he detected and proved only by laying an elaborate time-consuming trap.
§ Many local authorities have sought to prevent weighing at the point of delivery by getting by-laws and other local legislation requiring coal for delivery to more than one buyer to be carried in sacks each containing a specified quantity. I am informed that this has worked out extremely well in practice, and it is in the interests, therefore, of the purchasing public that similar requirements should be embodied in the present Bill. The Amendment is intended to achieve this purpose. If this Amendment is not accepted or if the Bill is not amended in the sense of meeting the grave defect to which I have referred, then it seems the weights and measures authorities, after the passing of this Bill, will have less power in this connection that at the present time under such by-laws or local legislation as they may have. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 26, at end insert the said subparagraph.—(Lord Latham.)
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI have considered this Amendment very carefully, and I have no doubt that very often in practice it would be the most convenient way and the most proper way to distinguish between the quantities intended for delivery to separate customers. But it appears that in some parts of the country it is the general custom for quantities of loose coal to be carried on the same vehicle for a number of customers, the quantities being separated not by containers but by boards which form partitions on the vehicle. Such coal is often discharged on to the pavement, the house-holder then shovelling it into his own cellar.
If the customers think this is the most convenient way of taking delivery of the coal it ought not to be necessary, from a weights and measures point of view, to prevent this method of carrying and delivering coal, provided that the general requirements of the Seventh Schedule are 984 complied with: that is to say, provided the fuel is sold by net weight and in one of the quantities specified in paragraph 2 of this Part of the Schedule. In view of what the noble Lord has said, perhaps we could consider whether it would be possible to devise some form of words which would ensure that the portions of coal destined for each customer are distinguished in some way which will prevent their being mixed up, though not necessarily by being put in containers.
§ LORD LATHAMI was very disturbed to hear the noble Lord tell me of the practice in certain parts of the country of designating weight by moving boards. It offers a wonderful field for adjustment. One could almost play chess with the boards. But in view of the noble Earl's offer to look into the matter, appreciating as he does the importance of it, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Seventh Schedule agreed to.
§ Eighth Schedule[Miscellaneous Goods other than Foods]:
§ PART III
§ Chalk, lime, inorganic fertilizers, agricultural salt and Portland cement
§ 12.15 p.m.
§ LORD LATHAMThis Amendment is intended to remove the limitation that the fertilisers to which this Part applies must be inorganic. An enormous development is taking place, which no doubt will continue, in the provision of fertilisers and the like, and I imagine there are certain substances which are mixtures of organic and inorganic; and this Amendment has been put down for the purpose of widening the application of the provision. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 45, leave out ("inorganic").—(Lord Latham.)
LORD ST. OSWALDThis Amendment seeks to bring within the scope of Part III of this Schedule organic fertilisers such as manure, guano and so forth, in addition to inorganic fertilisers like phosphates. Organic fertilisers do not readily lend themselves to control under weights and measures law. In agricultural areas, for instance, a large number of sales of manure—I think I 985 might safely say the great majority—are made by farmers. A load of manure will often be put into a tractor drawn trailer, probably fitted with sideboards, and to require vehicles of this kind to be calibrated by volume, or indeed to be weighed, would be quite impracticable. The Government believe that consumers of these fertilisers will be sufficiently protected by the general short weight and measure provision of Clause 25 in those cases where a representation of quantity is voluntarily made by the seller. Consumers will also be protected by the fact that if organic fertilisers are voluntarily sold by weight or volume, any weighing or measuring equipment used will be liable to supervision by the local authority's inspectors of weights and measures. The noble Lord mentioned the possibility of organic and inorganic fertilisers being mixed. They will be caught by the provisions of the Ninth Schedule and will have to be sold by or marked with their weight as the Bill stands.
§ LORD LATHAMIn the light of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 12.20 p.m.
§ LORD LATHAMThis Amendment raises the general question of net weight versus gross weight. We take the view that there is no justification for the goods covered by this Schedule being sold other than by net weight. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 24, leave out from ("weight") to the end of line 26.—(Lord Latham.)
LORD ST. OSWALDParagraph 3 of Part III of the Eighth Schedule requires pre-packed solid inorganic fertilisers to be sold by retail only in containers marked with a declaration in terms of net weight or gross weight, and, where gross 'weight is declared, sub-paragraph (2) limits the weight of the containers which may be included in the weight sold. Under this sub-paragraph the containers used must not exceed a weight calculated at the rate of 24 ounces per hundredweight of the gross weight, or approximately 1.3 per cent. The Amendment would have the effect of requiring all the articles covered by this Part of the Schedule to be sold only by net weight. Indeed it 986 is in the same bracket as matters which we have been discussing at great length during this debate.
In this particular case, the majority of these articles are packed on autometer weighing machines, very often in paper sacks. These are of special design, enabling the sack to be hung from the spout through which the goods are ejected. I have with me photographs and diagrams of some of them. They are very costly and complicated machines. Some of them cost, not thousands but tens of thousands of pounds, and in all of them, I think I am right in saying, the spout forms part of the weighing machine; hence the weight of the sack is included in the filled article. If these articles were required to be sold by net weight, difficulties would be caused to packers, and production might well be slowed down and the cost of the article increased. In our view, gross weight with a controlled maximum for the weight of the container is the right requirement here for these commodities. With those words, I hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
§ LORD LATHAMIn the light of what the noble Lord has said, which repeats what has been said by the noble Ministers dealing with this matter frequently in the course of he consideration of this Bill—the whole question can, of course, again be considered on the Report stage—f ask permission to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Eighth Schedule (continued):
§ PART IV
§ Haberdashery
§ LORD LATHAMThe purpose of this Amendment is to bring into this Part of the Schedule string, twine, rope, sash-cord and clothes line. It is suggested that these articles would not, strictly speaking, be regarded as haberdashery and in any case they ought to be included. In the course of my speech on Second Reading I gave an instance reported by a weights and measures authority of clothes line being sold, in one case about two and a half feet short, and in another case four and a half feet short. In one case there were 987 prosecutions and the person concerned was convicted. It seems to me that there can be little reason, if any, why these articles should not be within the provisions of the Bill. The fact that they are relatively cheap makes the liability to abuse and, in some cases, dishonesty, more attractive. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 33, after ("tape") insert ("string, twine, rope, sashcord. clothes lines"). —(Lord Latham.)
LORD ST. OSWALDThe Amendment seeks to add a fairly wide range of cordage to the list of goods required by Part IV of the Eighth Schedule to be sold either by net weight or by length, and when pre-packed to be marked with a declaration of net weight or length. There are practical difficulties in the way of ensuring that articles such as balls or hanks of string are accurate when they reach the consumer. A length can often be removed without its being noticed either by the retailer or the purchaser, and it would be manifestly unfair to make the original supplier responsible in such cases. The Government are satisfied that at this stage there is no necessity for these articles to be specifically controlled; but the power is in the Bill, should fresh circumstances arise, for the Board to bring string and rope within the purview of the Bill. In the meantime, where a definite representation of length is made by a seller—which is a fairly common practice in the case of pre-packed sash-cord and clothes-lines—then consumers will have the protection of the general short weight or measure provisions of Clause 25.
§ LORD LATHAMIn those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD FARINGDON had given Notice of intention to move four Amendments to bring knitting wools within the scope of the Part. The noble Lord said: This, and the three succeeding Amendments, deal with the same point; so, with the consent of your Lordships, I will speak on all four. These Amendments follow the recommendation of the Hodgson Report, which recommended that knitting wools should be sold by net weight and 988 bear a statement of minimum not weight on them. Your Lordships will probably be aware that most—in fact, I think all —knitting patterns carry an indication of the weight of wool which is required. That is the ordinary way in which the housewife who has some knitting to do buys her wool, and likes to buy it; and the only way in which she can be sure that in fact she is getting what she requires for her pattern is that the wool she is buying is weighable. It is an increasing tendency in the trade now to sell wool by hanks of not particularly definable weight or length, and wool is frequently sold labelled only with a statement of approximate weight. This seems to us to be open to considerable abuse.
§ Your Lordships will notice that at the end of the Amendment we have suggested that a British Standard of moisture regain should be written into the Bill. We think that that is a method of meeting the difficulties posed with a material like wool 'which has a considerable moisture regain. It seems to us that this Amendment is important to a great number of people and is in the spirit of the Bill, the major object of which is, as we have said again and again, the protection of the customer. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 33, leave out ("and").—(Lord Faringdon.)
§ LORD BARNBYWhen the Amendments use the words "knitting wools", if I correctly understand what is intended I would suggest that the more appropriate words would be "knitting yarns", because in this age yarns are being made of pure wool or of wool combined with other fibres. But it may even go so far as knitting yarns, including yarns made of any fibre. Therefore I suggest that the word "yarns" should be substituted for the word "wools".
LORD FARINGDONI thank the noble Lord very much indeed for his suggestion which, if the Government were prepared to accept this Amendment. I should be delighted to include.
§ LORD SHEPHERDI rise to support my noble friend and also the noble Lord opposite. I have some experience in selling knitting wools—admittedly not in 989 this country, but overseas. I noted with interest my noble friend's comment that a considerable amount of wool is being sold in this country under an approximate weight. I believe there is a fair amount, but I should not have put it dawn as "considerable". But I can tell him and your Lordships—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, will agree with me—that the leading firms in this country who produce knitting wools of various types all have it in a standard pack. To-day wool is not being sold loose. It is largely made up into what are called "balls", which are all of a standard weight and are also within the Standard 984 for moisture content.
If the Government will accept the Amendment as it stands, I believe that it will strengthen the position of responsible, reliable manufacturers in this country and will curb some of the abuses occurring to-day with imported wools—some from the Continent, some from Iron Curtain countries—which in some cases are being sold in a form making it appear to the public that they are British wools. There is no doubt there is some abuse in the matter, and I believe that the public, who are now very big purchasers of knitting wool, should be protected; and therefore I support my noble friend. I should like to see the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, included, because this should cover all knitting yarns, in the sense that wool is largely no longer pure but is being mixed with nylon and other acetate items.
§ LORD BARNBYBefore the noble Lord replies, and seeing that the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, if I correctly understood him, moved a composite Amendment, in case the succeeding Amendment (No. 174) should not be moved, I should like to remind the noble Lord, particularly because he has referred to moisture content (and this is an extremely technical matter, as he will recognise), that the wool textile industry is primarily concerned with this. As the standard regain moisture content is referred to and accepted by the Hodgson Report, the British Standards Institute could 'provide the proper 'publicly recognised body to determine the manner in which these matters should be ordered and dealt with in the Bill.
LORD ST. OSWALDIt is true that these Amendments follow the Hodgson 990 Committee's recommendation that knitting wools, including certain other special wools, should be sold only in terms of weight; but the Government, after careful examination of the Hodgson Committee's views, have come to the conclusion that such a requirement would be extremely difficult to operate and enforce, and that, at the end of the day, it would fail to confer any really worthwhile protection on the consumer.
As regards the practical difficulties, these articles are extremely hygroscopic. They are products which are continually changing their moisture content, up and down, according to the temperature or humidity in which they are kept; and the weight of a hank varies enormously according to the humidity of the atmosphere at any particular time. In order to determine whether the weight of a hank was correct when it was wound, it would be necessary to determine its oven dry weight and then make a calculation to reduce the weight to the agreed conditions, so that the consumer could not check the weight for herself. Again, hanks of yarn, although normally sold by approximate weight, are made up by length; and it is easy to see that accurate control of the weight of an article the thickness of which is continually varying and which is made up according to a pre-determined length is extremely difficult. The position is not made easier by the fact that wool has elastic properties and can stretch during the winding on which it is made up for sale. Finally the same difficulty exists with hanks and balls of wool as was mentioned in connection with balls of string. It is well-nigh impossible to know, if short weight is detected, whether this is clue to someone having extracted a length of yarn without noticeable effect on the hank or ball.
From the consumer's point of view, a declaration of precise weight, even if practicable, would not guarantee that, say, the 10 ounces bought to make up a pattern, which says that 10 ounces is needed, would prove to be just the right amount for that pattern. It depends at least to some extent upon the way in which the individual knits, and upon the elasticity of the particular hanks of wool being used. I listened to the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, that: the only way in which a knitting lady could judge how much wool she needed 991 was by its weight. But I doubt very much whether that argument is valid. I am bound to say that I also doubt the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—or what I understood to be his contention—that all the established and reliable producers of wool would welcome this Amendment. The British Standard Specification referred to in one of the related Amendments is under review, and has been for many years. It is by no means certain that any revised specification will resemble the old one, when considered from the point of view of its use as an aid to weights and measures enforcement. For the reasons already given, it has often not been practicable for producers to keep to the old specification, which is not, of course compulsory. I hope that I have explained the position to the noble Lord.
LORD FARINGDONThe noble Lord will have noticed that I make provision in my Amendment for a change in the standard. I am very disappointed by the noble Lord's reply and I am not sure that I can accept it. My inclination is to press this particular Amendment. It concerns a great many people who I think are liable to be somewhat defenceless. I feel that we should do something to help the housewife to get what she thinks she is getting, and hopes to get, when she is doing knitting work. Therefore I do not feel I can withdraw this Amendment. I can see that there are certain difficulties created by the nature of the material itself, but I do not think they are insuperable, and I believe that we ought to give this protection.
§ LORD LATHAMSurely all the considerations set out by the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, were in the mind of the Committee which made a very strong recommendation that wool should be sold by net weight. In that view they had the support of local authorities, who were, and are, the weights and measures authorities. Moreover—and this is apropos of what the noble Lord said as regards size—they had the support of a number of women's associations, who requested that the sale by weight of knitting wool and similar commodities should be regularised under weights and measures legislation. In the circumstances, we feel that we cannot do other than press this Amendment.
§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGERAs one of the "defenceless housewives" I must support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Faringdon. Surely the noble Lord will realise that all the objections he has raised to requiring the weight of wool to be indicated on the hank must apply to a practice which has gone on for a long time among the more reputable firms. It has been customary for yarn to be sold by weight, and I can see no valid objection to the proposal that that should now become obligatory. Noble Lords must appreciate that if this Amendment is not carried they may be found in a very embarrassing position. Those of us who have the pleasure sometimes of knitting woollen garments, such as pullovers, for noble Lords and their friends like, as my noble friend Lord Faringdon has said, to buy the full quantity of wool in the first instance. because if we do not do so, sometimes when we go to get a further supply there is no accurate match; and one would not like to see noble Lords in this House appearing in pullovers of a patchwork appearance. I support the Amendment.
§ LORD SHEPHERDI have always tried to be polite, but really the reply that has been given is nonsense. In the knitting wool industry, firms like Patons and Baldwins are not rough-and-ready producers. Theirs is a very skilled operation. They know to the very closest part of an ounce what they are selling. I advise the noble Lord before the weekend to go to a store to look at a package of Patons and Baldwins 3-ply knitting wool, and he will there see the net weight of the knitting wool in the packet and the standards of the moisture which applies to the weight. I think the Government must look at this again. If they are not prepared to do so we must press this Amendment.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI cannot pass by the noble Lord's assertion that my noble friend's defence was nonsense; in fact, it still seems to me to be an adequate defence. But those of your Lordships who have spoken carry very great weight from many points of view. We have had the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, who speaks from the point of view of an experienced housewife, and also the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. In view of the consensus of 993 expert opinion about this matter, I feel that, while I cannot agree to accept now what noble Lords say, I ought to undertake to reconsider the matter.
LORD FARINGDONI once again thank the noble Earl very much for his accommodating attitude to this Amendment. As he said, it has received a great deal of support from all sides of the Committee. I thank other noble Lords who have supported me. I believe that this is really an important Amendment affecting a great many people. But, with the assurance of the noble Earl, I will beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Eighth Schedule (continued):
§ PART V
§ Miscellaneous goods to be sold by or marked with net weight
§ 12.4:3 p.m.
§ LORD LATHAMThe purpose of this Amendment is to remove doubt, which I understand exists, as to whether cattle food is domestic. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 2, leave out ("domestic")—(Lord Latham.)
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEESub-paragraph (d) of paragraph I includes manufactured food for domestic animals among the articles required to be sold by, or marked with, net weight. The noble Lord's Amendment would have the effect of requiring all manufactured feeding-stuffs for animals to be sold by, or marked with, net weight. The noble Lord said he moved it with the object of finding out whether cattle food would be included. But it would not, as I understand, be included. The Hodgson Committee took evidence only from 'the manufacturers of feeding-stuffs for pets, such as dogs and cats and birds. We could not regard their recommendations in relation to animal foods as extending beyond the field of these domestic animals. We could not consider extending it to the wider field of other animal food such as cattle cake, and so on, because the evidence for doing that just has not been considered by anybody. But if experience should show that the protection in this part of the Eighth Schedule ought to be extended to wider fields, the Board of Trade would be able to achieve that by means of orders under 994 Clause 22 of the Bill, having properly considered the reasons for doing so.
§ LORD LATHAMIn the light of that explanation, which has at all events clarified the position that cattle would not come within this provision, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD LATHAMThe purpose of this Amendment is to add to sub-paragraph (I) of paragraph l:
soap powders and powders which are mixtures of soap and detergent".It seems to me that if we are to have included "soap flakes" and "soap, other than liquid soap", then, if the protection of the consumer is really to be effective and comprehensive, soap powders and powders which are mixtures of soap and detergent should come within the provisions as well.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 7, at end insert ("soap powders and powders which are mixtures of soap and detergent").—(Lord Latham.)
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEThis is rather a complicated point and I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing it up with such brevity. The Amendment seeks to make sure that all possible types of washing materials are caught by the provisions of Part V of the Eighth Schedule. Let us see what is in it. The Part already lists cleansing powders, scouring powders, detergents, soap and soap flakes, which are all, in the broad sense, detergents, I think that these descriptions are sufficiently comprehensive to cover soap powders, and so require them to be sold by, or marked with, net weight. Powders which are mixtures of soap and detergent are not specifically listed in this Part of the Schedule. I think the noble Lord would agree that it would be extremely laborious if we were to try in every part of the Schedules, from the Fifth to the Eighth, to list all possible mixtures of the articles which are referred to in them.
What we have done, in the Ninth Schedule, paragraphs 1 and 2, is to try to cover all those mixtures and assortments of goods listed in the earlier Schedules which are not specifically mentioned in them. The effect of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Ninth Schedule will be to require powders which are 995 mixtures of soap and detergents to be sold by, or marked with, net weight or measure. We assume that in practice this will mean that the powders will be marked with their net weight, and that any possible mixtures of these goods which are in liquid form will be marked with their measure. I think that this will achieve all that the noble Lord would wish to do in bringing forward his Amendment. I do not think that in a Bill of this kind we can list all the possible mixtures one can imagine; but if any kind of mixture appears later, in practice, not to be marked in the manner we think necessary to protect the interests of the public, it will then, under Clause 22, be possible to make an order ensuring that the appropriate form of marking is obligatory.
§ LORD LATHAMI am much obliged for the helpful explanation which the noble Earl has given. I understand him to say that it is felt that soap powders and powders which are mixtures of soap and detergents are already, in various Parts of the Bill, covered by the Bill, but that, if that should be found not to be the case, the Board of Trade would consider taking steps to bring them within the provisions of Clause 22. In the light of that explanation and assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 12.49 p.m.
§ LORD LATHAMI beg to move this Amendment. I think the case for it was made on the opening day of the Committee stage when an exhibit was produced by, I believe, the noble Viscount my Leader. I leave it at that. I should have thought there would be a willingness, and an obvious willingness, in the light of the exposure of that exhibit, on the part of the Government themselves to have put down an Amendment to bring in cosmetics. As they have not done so, I myself perform the duty.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 83, line 8, at end insert—
("() cosmetics").—(Lord Latham.)
§ THE EARL, OF DUNDEEI gather from the noble Lord's observations in moving this Amendment that it would 996 not have been put down if the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition had not exhibited a jar of face cream, demonstrating that it contained less material than one might imagine it to contain if one looked only at the outside.
§ LORD LATHAMThat is stretching my language.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEBut I do not think that the fact that anybody has recently discovered that some jars of face cream have large and weighty bottoms is a convincing case to require all cosmetics to be sold by weight, because I understand that some of them are sold by quality rather than by quantity. The Hodgson Committee recognised that it would not be appropriate to require all pre-packed cosmetics to be marked with the weight of the contents. For example, it would include lipstick and liquid eye black; and I should have thought that the term "cosmetics" was rather too vague to be included in the schedule.
You must have regard to what is in the consumer's mind when she buys these things. In some cases, the consumer may be interested almost wholly in quantity because the quality may be fairly standard. In other cases, the consumer is not at all concerned about quantity except within extremely wide limits, because she is buying the goods on the quality alone. This is particularly the case where the goods are semi-luxuries, which sell more on the quality, or even on the glamour that surrounds them. I should have thought that, in the field of female adornment, weight and glamour are not usually closely associated. However, in view of the disquiet about face cream which the noble Viscount expressed to the House, the Government will certainly look at that particular matter, but we could not undertake any specific action before hearing all the relevant facts about it.
§ LORD SHEPHERDThe noble Earl based his case on the question of quality being more important in some cases than quantity. I notice that in the list of goods which will be required to be sold by net weight under sub-paragraph (h) he has soap, and the noble Earl knows as well as I do that soap is also sold by quality. There are the cheaper soaps and there are the luxurious types of soap 997 in price, but you have been able to include soap in this Part. I should have thought that you would have been able to find some way to give protection to the consumer of cosmetics.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEIt might be that you could take some particular kind of cosmetic and say, by order, "This shall be sold by weight". I think that "cosmetics" as a general term would be too wide.
§ LORD LATHAMI take it from that that the noble Earl will look at the more limited question before the next stage, and in those circumstances, glamour or no glamour, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 12.54 p.m.
§ LORD SHEPHERDOn behalf of my noble Leader, I beg to move this Amendment. Part V, as we know, requires miscellaneous goods to be marked and sold with their net weight, and under sub-paragraph 1(j)there is included "tobacco other than cigars, cheroots, cigarettes and snuff". Then, in subparagraph 3(d)there is excluded "goods in a quantity of less than one ounce". We are therefore faced with the fact that tobacco, if it is less than one ounce in weight, can be sold without being marked with the net weight: and we have received certain representations, particularly from the industrial parts of the country, that tobacco is quite commonly sold in quantities of less than one ounce. Now tobacco, thanks—well, not thanks, but regrettably, owing to Government taxation, is a pretty expensive commodity, and we feel that, taking that into account, and the fact that in certain parts of the country a large number of people regularly buy tobacco in quantities of less than one ounce, this type of trade should not be excluded from the provisions of this Bill. Therefore, I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 22, after ("goods") insert ("(except tobacco)").—(Lord Shepherd.)
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEThis Amendment would have the effect of removing from the list of exemptions in paragraph 3 of Part V of this Schedule those small packets of tobacco which are commonly sold in Quantities of less than one ounce 998 for a low price. The arguments on this Amendment are exactly the same as those which applied to an earlier Amendment, which we discussed yesterday, about small quantities of chocolate, and with which I am not sure that all your Lordships agreed although they seemed to me to be reasonable. The point is this: that in the case of some commodity sold in very small quantities for a very low price, for which the consumer is accustomed to pay a standard price, it is often more convenient to the consumer that there should be small variations in the quantity, the price remaining the same, than that there should be small variations in price, the quantity remaining the same.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHI am not quite sure where the noble Earl is leading us on this. Are you suggesting that it is a common practice to pre-pack quantities of less than one ounce of tobacco?
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEThe common practice?
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHYes. Is it the common practice?
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEThis Amendment applies to pre-packed packets of tobacco. The traditional one or two-ounce packets of tobacco will be required by this Part of the Schedule to be marked with a declaration of quantity in terms of net weight, but what the Amendment would do would be to require the tobacco manufacturers to indicate the net weight on very small packets of tobacco, on packets of half an ounce, and to print new labels every time the weight is varied. When there is a slight change in the price of tobacco, instead of changing the price of these very small packets, they make a small variation in the quantity, charging the same price, if the price of the tobacco goes up, instead of charging a halfpenny more for a little packet, they make it correspondingly less in weight: if the price goes down, instead of charging a halfpenny less, they make the weight correspondingly more. We think that that is more convenient to the customer than having slight variations in price and constant weight, and that it would be an unduly onerous burden on the suppliers to have to print new labels every time there was 999 one of these small variations in weight which follow small variations in price.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHThat may be so. I do not want to press this matter too hard, but what made me put this Amendment down was my own impression that the large tobacco manufacturers do not, in any case that would require a change of label, pack less than an ounce. Not all. but the majority of modern packets of an ounce and upwards are now in hermetically-sealed tins, but the need for being able to sell less than an ounce is, of course, well known. That is still done, very largely by the tobacconist on the corner, with the scale. It is mostly done with the small purchases of tobaccos like light and dark shag. I have no information at all (I may be without proper information) that all these things which the noble Earl said would be required would, in fact, be required. I do not think they will be, but I want to make sure that anybody who goes in and buys over the counter half-an-ounce of tobacco instead of an ounce will be quite sure that he has half-an-ounce.
§ LORD AMPTHILLI think I may be able to help the Committee on this matter. The 'tendency in the trade over innumerable years has been for more and more of these half-ounce packets to be put up in the factory, and the practice of cutting off tobacco from the roll or bar in the retailer's shop and selling it over the counter has been getting less and less. In the factory, as I tried to explain in the Second Reading debate, it is not always possible to weigh out the tobacco to exactly half-an-ounce. Sometimes you have bars of tobacco of 1/34th or 1/36th of a pound. Normally the labels are printed according to how the bars are weighed in the factory, and then they are packed in these little wrappers.
Now, what happens is that if the duty is changed, therefore the price has to be changed, and you may have to change your weight overnight from 1/34th to 1/36th or the other way round, from 1/36th to 1/34th. On such occasions we have to employ a large number of girl workers to stamp the labels with a rubber stamp before the goods go out at the new weight. I am trying to help the Committee, but I do not see the pur- 1000 pose of this Amendment, because, so far as I am aware, almost all the put-up tobaccos are hard tobaccos, either bar or roll—the stuff which you chew. Or, if you put it in a pipe, you cut it with your knife before you insert it in the pipe. All this put-up tobacco is weighed and labelled in either one-ounce or half-an-ounce packets. So far as the half-ounce packet is concerned, it may be 1/32nd, 1/34th or 1/36th of a pound; it depends on the incidence of the duty in arriving at your price. The consumer does not pay an unfair price, but at the same time does not want to pay a three-farthings price, so we have to try to arrive at a happy medium. Frankly, I do not think this Amendment will help the consumer at all. All the manufacturers I know stamp their put-up hard tobaccos of less than one ounce before the packets go out to the consumer.
§ LORD AIREDALEIs there not a case for rejecting this Amendment, so far as it applies to the factory pre-packed tobacco in very small quantities, but accepting it so far as it applies to loose tobacco sold in very small quantities by the tobacconist over the counter, as the noble Viscount instanced a moment ago?
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEOn that point, I had intended, when I had an opportunity, to reassure the noble Viscount that, if a retailer sells loose tobacco in quantities of less than one ounce by weight, the Bill does ensure that it is an offence to give underweight. In fact, tobacconists' weighing machines have to be of a higher standard of accuracy than most of the weighing machines used in shops. With regard to tobacco sold in small packages, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ampthill for putting greater knowledge in my mind and for dealing in much greater detail with the argument I have tried to submit to your Lordships.
§ LORD SHEPHERDI have listened to this brief debate and I am quite satisfied with what I have heard. The only point I would make is really on the definition of "pre-packed". At the moment, we talk of "pre-packed" in the sense of pre-packed in the factory. In the case of tobacco, supposing the tobacconist makes it up from his own stock into small packages of half an ounce. Would 1001 that then be selling it loose, so that he would have to sell it by the actual net weight? Or cart he sell it as though it were pre-packed? I am not going to press this Amendment, but perhaps it could be looked into. This may be the last time I shall be speaking in this debate, and I should just like to say to the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, that I apologise if I used a rather hard word a few minutes ago, but I know he will take no offence.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Eighth Schedule (continued):
§ PART VI
§ Miscellaneous goods to be sold by or marked with capacity measurement
§ 1.5 p.m.
LORD FARINGDONThe object of this Amendment is really quite simple, and is, of course, intended to be helpful. All fungicides and insecticides are not included under the generic term of "wood preservative fluid". There are many others, and we are afraid, owing to the wording of the Bill, that the others would not be included, and we think they should be. It is the object of this Amendment to bring them into this Part. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 29, leave out ("(including").—(Lord Faringdon.)
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEThis is another slightly complicated point which I will do my best to explain, if I can, without taking up too much time. The proposed Amendment would bring all fungicides and insecticides in liquid form within the provisions of Part VI of the Eighth Schedule—namely, the requirements that they shall be sold only by capacity measurement, and, when pre-packed, shall be marked with a declaration of measure. As drafted, Part VI of this Schedule does not apply to insecticides and fungicides as such at all, but only to wood preservative fluids, including those which have insecticidal or fungicidal properties.
Insecticides and fungicides are made in a large number of ways, and it would be most inappropriate to require them all to be sold by, or marked with, capacity 'measurement. Some, for example, are in spray form some are in 1002 powder form; and I am told that some are even solid. It would be very difficult indeed to separate all the various varieties in a manner which would enable precise legal definitions to be made, and then to specify what should be the appropriate manner for selling each variety in terms of quantity. This is, in fact, another case—although I do not want to compare fungicides with cosmetics—in which the consumer may not be especially concerned with the total quantity. The appropriateness of the particular insecticide to the type of insect to be destroyed may be a much more important consideration than the quantity of the stuff, and the lethal quality of the insecticide may be another important consideration; it may be the predominant consideration in many cases. The consumer may not worry very much about the total quantity. That is why we are limiting the extension of this Schedule to those fungicides which are used as liquid wood preservatives.
LORD FARINGDONI do not quite follow the argument of the noble Earl. It would seem that what he is saying, in effect, is that if a thing is a quality article, as it were, it does not matter how much of it you are getting: that if your cosmetic is a lipstick or a face cream, you are concerned only with the excellence of the material and not with the amount you are buying. I should have thought that you would care about both; that you would choose on account of the quality anti then you would want to know how much you were getting for your money. The same surely applies to fungicides and insecticides.
If the noble Earl says that this is not the right place to put the Amendments in, I am prepared to accept his word; but it seems to me that this is the place. He further says that some of these articles are made in powder and some are solid. I cannot think of any solid ones but I assume that he knows. Many of them are certainly in the form of sprays. There does not seem any great difficulty in deciding exactly what the unit of measurement should be, when you have decided that they have to be marked. I should have thought that the user of fungicides and insecticides would like to know, however much he was occupied with the idea that they 1003 were for black fly or green fly, et cetera,that he was getting a gallon of spray, or whatever it is, and was able to tell how long it would last and how far it would go.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI am sure that the noble Lord will see that his argument would logically lead to the inclusion under weights and measures legislation of every article which has ever been bought or sold in any way. The object of the Bill is to give protection only to those articles which are sold predominantly by weight or measure. If there are any articles of that kind not included in the Bill and which the noble Lord can say are sold in that manner and should be protected under the Bill, if necessary they can be brought in by Order under Clause 22. We cannot accept the general argument that because commodities all have a certain quantity or weight, they should mere-fore all be brought into a Weights and Measures Bill.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD FARINGDONThis is a straightforward Amendment meaning exactly what it says. It wishes to bring within Part VI of this Schedule linseed oil and anti-freeze solutions, for which there is a constantly increasing demand. We all use them and they are perfectly easy to measure. A good quantity is extremely important to the buyer. In the case of anti-freeze, if it is in short quantity he may find his motor car frozen up. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 30, at end insert "linseed oil and anti-freeze solutions").—(Lord Faringdon.)
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEAlphabetically, this Marshalled List is not always in order. I am very interested in what the noble Lord has said. The reason why we have not included linseed oil is that it has a comparatively limited retail sale, while the sale of anti-freeze solution is very seasonal. Neither commodity was recommended by the Hodgson Committee to be subject to any special requirement as to sale by measure, but, 'where they are so sold, Clause 25 will, of course, protect the public against short 1004 measure or misrepresentation either by writing or speech. If a convincing case were made out at a later date for specifically requiring these goods to be sold only in terms of measure, the Government would have to examine the technical aspects of this, in consultation with the trade, before committing themselves to taking action under the order-making powers conferred by Clause 22.
§ LORD SHACKLETONDo I understand that the Hodgson Committee considered these articles, or did that not occur to them?
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI have not that information before me, but I do not think that the Hodgson Committee made any recommendation about them.
§ LORD SHACKLETONI should have thought that these were comparatively simple items to bring within the coverage of this clause. Linseed oil might be a more difficult requirement, although small boys want it with which to oil their cricket bats, and it might be important in that respect. The argument that anti-freeze solution is only a seasonal requirement seems to have no validity. The fact remains that it is a commodity which is in very wide use. I fully accept that we cannot extend the Bill to everything, and that it applies mainly to items for which there is a general demand. None the less, it seems that anti-freeze solution is a material at least as much in demand as some of those that are included—as much as, say, wood preservative. I do not know what quantity of anti-freeze solution is sold but I should expect it to be pretty large nowadays. It is a market which, on the whole, could do with a little regulation. Perhaps the noble Earl would consider this matter again and see whether these articles could be brought in at a later stage.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI would remind your Lordships that we are considering whether anti-freeze solution should be subject to the particular requirements of sale which are laid down in the Schedule. The principle which the Board of Trade have adopted is not to bring in everything which it cannot be shown ought not to be included, but to bring in only those articles for which there is a good case and which have 1005 been examined, usually in consultation with the trade. In view of what the noble Lord has said, I will certainly consider whether there is any case for including anti-freeze solution. As a rule, articles are not brought in unless they have been examined and recommended by the Hodgson Committee or by the Board of Trade in consultation with the industries concerned, or both.
LORD FARINGDONI am much obliged to the noble Earl. I think there is a case for including anti-freeze solution No prosecution has taken place under Clause 25, unless the container was marked on the outside with false information. The Schedule lists articles which have to be marked. If they are marked incorrectly, people can be proceeded against under Clause 25. There seems to be a very strong case for insisting that this particular material, antifreeze solution, should be in marked containers. In view of the promise of the noble Earl that he will look at this matter again, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment at this stage.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Eighth Schedule agreed to.
§ Ninth Schedule agreed to.
§ Tenth Schedule [Repeals extending to Great Britain]:
§ LORD STONHAMThis Amendment goes with No. 175A, which is on the same point. As this is the last Amendment to be moved from this side of the House, I should like to express our grateful thanks for the care and courtesy with which the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, have attended to all our inquiries and particularly to wish them extremely well with those many points they have promised to consider. I hope we shall get excellent results after the Recess. In one particular case they can make a judgment even before the Recess, because an attractive display has been arranged at short notice in the Royal Gallery of articles with eight items in them, which can be clearly seen, and I hope that noble Lords and officials will look at them.
This Schedule proposes to repeal the second paragraph of Section 4 of the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1887, and the second Amendment proposes to repeal subsection (3) of Section 46 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1945. 1006 Both these sections relate to the verification of scales at markets and require that verification shall be carried out at least twice a year. If these two provisions are repealed, presumably it will mean that the Government intend that regulations shall be made under the Weights and Measures Act, 1904, so that the scales shall be tested only once a year.
The National Farmers' Union are particularly concerned about this. They are strongly opposed to any lessening in the frequency with which such scales should be verified and therefore wish to oppose strongly the repeal of these two sections. In fact, they are of opinion that scales should be verified more than twice a year. A great many sales take place and a great deal of money is involved, and they can see no reason why, in a Weights and Measures Bill which is designed to give adequate protection in the matter of correct weight, provisions for testing scales twice a year should be repealed and testing only once a year substituted. I think the point is clear and I 'hope that the Government will agree that to repeal these two provisions would be a mistake. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 86, leave out from beginning of line 27 to end of line 30.—(Lord Stonham.)
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI am grate-full to the noble Lord for speaking to these two Amendments together. The first proposes to leave out the repeal of the paragraph 2 of Section 4 of the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1847. There are two reasons why we think this paragraph should be repealed. In the first place, it has caused some difficulty because the paragraph does not contain any testing requirements. It is not clear whether "testing" means testing to the tolerances applicable to new and repaired machines or testing to the inspection tolerances which are 'applicable to machines in course of use for trade.
The other reason is that the machines and weights in question are undoubtedly in use for trade under the existing Weights and Measures Acts and will continue to be in use under the Bill, aid will therefore be required to be passed and stamped by an inspector before use, I and be subject to periodical inspection 1007 thereafter. When their accuracy deteriorates outside the inspection allowances, the stamps will be obliterated and they will have to be adjusted and restamped. There seems to be no reason why cattle market weighing equipment should be required to be subject to different testing from other machines in use for trade; but, in regard to what the noble Lord said about the opinion of some farmers that they ought to be tested more frequently than other machines, there is nothing in this Bill to prevent a market authority asking the local inspector to test their equipment as often as they like—once a week, if they want to—if they are willing to pay the requisite fees.
With regard to the Amendment to restore a similar provision in the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, which requires a market authority to have their weighing machines verified at least twice a year, the Amendment seeks to perpetuate a provision relating to weights and measures which, we think, is rendered out of date by the Bill. The provision in the 1955 Act—although 1955 is not so long ago—was a repetition from an earlier Act and is a relic from the last century, when the system of testing and stamping all weighing and measuring equipment used for trade was much less thorough and comprehensive than it is now. It is not a fault in the 1955 Act that it preserved an out-dated provision. That Act was not primarily concerned with weights and measures, and it was right to await a new Weights and Measures Bill which could tackle the job of sweeping away the dead wood in a proper manner. Part II of the Bill sets out a comprehensive code for the testing and stamping of all trade equipment: and the Government feel that it is both unnecessary and, indeed, objectionable in principle to preserve portions of earlier legislation which were trying to do the same job in a piecemeal fashion in the light of circumstances which have long since passed away.
§ LORD STONHAMI am grateful to the noble Earl for his comprehensive and satisfactory reply. The noble Earl has indicated that this Bill will provide better and more regular methods of testing, but in view of the concern expressed by the National Farmers' Union on this point and the fact that 1008 we should all agree that machines should be tested as often as necessary, it may be necessary for me to refer to the matter again at a later stage. Meanwhile, I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEThis Amendment is consequential on an earlier Amendment to Clause 6, page 6, line 42. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 87, line 146, third column, at end insert—
("the words 'and to be verified', and the words 'verified and' in the last two places where those words occur.")—(The Earl of Dundee.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEThis Amendment and No. 179 go together. Their purpose is to synchronise the effect of what is done in these Schedules with the different times at which different parts of this Bill come into operation—that is, some in six months' and some in one year's time. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 87, line 56, third column, at end insert—
("In section one hundred and twenty-three. in subsection (6), the words from 'or the 'to may be'.")—(The Earl of Dundee.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEThis Amendment should be taken together with No. 180. Their joint effect is to transpose the repeal of subsection (7) of Section 56 of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act, 1956, from Part II to Part I of the Tenth Schedule. The effect of the transposition is that that subsection will be repealed six months after the enactment of the Bill instead of two years from that date. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 87, line 56, at end insert—
| (" 4 & 5 Eliz. 2. c. 30. | The Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act, 1956. | In section fifty-six subsection (7)") |
| —(The Earl of Dundee.) |
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEThis Amendment is consequential on an early Amendment to Clause 63, at page 50, line 29. I beg, to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 89, line 10, third column, at end insert—
("In section eighty-seven, in paragraph (a) of subsection (3), the words from 'or local' onwards.")—(The Earl of Dundee.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI rather dislike moving an Amendment to repeal an Act which has such a beautiful name as
An Act for Regulating the Vend and Delivery of Coals in the Cities of London and Westminster,but it has been represented to us by the Cities of London and Westminster that this Act has long been obsolete, and I am afraid that it has to be included among the nine pages or so of local Acts which are being repealed by this Bill, in a similar way to the provisions of a number of other local Acts which are all being repealed because they are either inconsistent with or superseded by the provisions of this Bill. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 89, third column, leave out lines 18 to 21.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 47, third column, leave out ("subsection (7), and").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI am sorry. but this is the Amendment about repealing the London Act which I thought I moved last time.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEPerhaps I may now move No. 181.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 18, at end insert—
| ("1 & 2 Will. 4.1 xxvi. | An Act for regulating the Vend and Delivery of Coals in the Cities of London and Westminster, etc. | Section forty-three. Sections forty— seven to fifty— eight.") |
| —(The Earl of Dundee.) |
§ LORD SHACKLETONMay I ask whether the arguments that the noble Earl would have used in regard to No. 179 might be used in regard to this Amendment?
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI referred to No. 179 on moving No. 176 and unfortunately I forgot that they had to be put separately.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Tenth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
§ Eleventh Schedule [Provisions relating to Northern Ireland]:
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEThis Amendment is designed to make it clear that the date referred to in subparagraph (d) of paragraph 17 of this Schedule Is the only date with which the Northern Ireland Parliament will be concerned—namely, the date appointed by order under subsection (6) of Clause 10 of the Bill on which the apothecaries' weights, as distinct from the apothecaries' measures, are to cease to be lawful for use for trade. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 106, line 36, leave out ("for the purposes of") and insert ("with respect to apothecaries weight under").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ On Question, Whether the Amendments shall be reported to the House?
§ 1.33 p.m.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEMy Lords, before the Bill is reported, may I just express my thanks to your Lordships in all parts of the House for the great help which you have given to the Government in this slightly strenuous Committee stage. I am sure your Lordships would wish me particularly to express our thanks to the Opposition, who have fulfilled their duties, I think, under very heavy pressure indeed, sometimes no doubt even with some exhaustion, although they have never shown any signs of it. All sections of the House desire more Bills to be introduced in your Lordships' House at the beginning of a Session, instead of their being introduced in another place, because we feel that that is for the convenience of both Houses jointly and of Parliament as a whole.
Your Lordships have been most helpful in examining this Bill properly in 1011 Committee. I am sure that, although we still have a great deal of hard work in front of us on the Report stage, we shall have the advantage of doing that with greater familiarity with the Bill; and I am sure that the fruits of a great deal we have done in Committee will then be realised. I feel that we have greatly improved the Bill, and I hope that by the time it goes to another place we shall be able to feel that we have really made a good job of it.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, may I say "Thank you very much" to the noble Earl for what he has said. We should like to congratulate him upon his physical endurance. It is a little easier in the other place, where he was also used to handling Committee considerations and was able to get perhaps one or two more Ministerial colleagues to sit in to help during long and protracted Committee discussions. I think the noble Earl has been very good indeed; and so has the Parliamentary Secretary. I am afraid that we got a little cross with the Parliamentary Secretary once or twice, perhaps owing rather to his habit of reading at great pace long briefs supplied to him by his Department. If we sometimes got a little hot, we apologise. But when the noble Lord has had as much experience as the noble Earl had in the Scottish Grand Committee in another place, he will understand that tempers are apt to get a little troublesome on some occasions, and he will take it with the great calm that the noble Earl usually does.
There is one other thing I should like to say on the general question. If we are to have Bills of this kind introduced into your Lordships' House, for the convenience of ourselves but also for the convenience of the Government, so saving, probably, a considerable amount of Committee and Report time in another place by dealing first with a major Bill here, then we shall require some better consideration of how we can ease our pains and aches in our physical endurance. I am not yet quite satisfied with the arrangements made. Equally, if the Government, as a result of work in your Lordships' House are going to get a good deal of time saved in the Commons' consideration of the Bill, then I do not think 1012 they should be so insistent upon the actual dates when they get the Bills. I am not talking about a wide extension of time here, but if we are going to perform our job efficiently, there should be a little give-and-take as to when we can do it.
My last point on the matter to the noble Earl is that we thank him for the large number of Amendments which he has promised to look into again. We are going to resume on this Bill within a day or two of coming back after the Recess, and I think it would be convenient if, through the usual channels, the noble Earl and the Parliamentary Secretary could arrange to meet two or three of us on this side, so that we can find out how far we are going to be met on A, B and C, and may have an early opportunity of laying before the House Amendments in which we wish to persist on the Report stage. Otherwise, coming straight back after the Recess, there may be something of a jam.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEI was hoping that we might arrange that possibly a week before we reassemble.
§ On Question, the Amendments reported.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEMy Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn until half-past two.
§ Moved, That the House do now adjourn until half-past two.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to, and House adjourned accordingly.
§ The Sitting was suspended at nineteen minutes before two o'clock, and resumed at half-past two.
§ The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.