Lords Sitting of 2 February 1961

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich

HOSPITAL DEATHS: CONVEYANCE OF BODIES
2.35 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if, when the relatives so request, they will pay the cost of the conveyance of the bodies of patients who have died in hospitals at a distance from their homes.]
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, where a patient dies in a hospital at some distance from his home, the hospital authority has power to pay for conveying the body home, if the relatives cannot meet the cost and the patient was admitted for treatment which could not be given in a hospital serving his own area.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the hospitals' use of their discretionary powers varies very considerably? Some suggest that burials should take place in the area where death occurs, but others, even after the families have proved that they cannot pay, still will not defray the cost of transport. Does the noble Lord not think that the Minister should have some real definition in this matter so that there is a uniform practice and very poor people may be assured that their relatives can be brought home?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, my impression is that this scheme does, in fact.
260
work very well. It has been in being since the start of the National Health Service, and there have not been many complaints. My right honourable friend, however, always looks into any complaints that are made to him, and if the noble Lord has any particular cases in mind I shall be very glad to look into them.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's answer to the supplementary question, may I ask him Whether he would, with his Ministers, consider the position of the relatives of soldiers, sailors and airmen who die overseas in course of duty? As the noble Lord is aware—I am sure he is aware of it—these persons who die overseas are buried at the overseas station. In many cases parents would wish to bring them home, particularly as many of the countries in which they are buried are becoming independent and are no longer within what we call the Commonwealth. Would the Minister undertake to consider this important matter on behalf of the relatives?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I think this is really a very different matter, but I will certainly see that What the noble Lord has said is considered by whichever of my right honourable friends is responsible.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his answer to me. Does he realise that the Question is based on actual unsatisfied complaints, which I shall be glad if he will look into? The real point at issue is this. There is no charge on the relatives when a patient is brought back from a distant hospital alive, and it is difficult to understand why there should be a charge to the relatives when the patient is brought back dead.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I should have thought there was all the difference in the world between being alive and dead. But, as I said, I shall be very glad to look into the case if the noble Lord cares to let me have the details.

INOCULATION AGAINST FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE
2.39 p.m.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any information is available as to the method of inoculating cattle against foot-and-mouth disease which is being successfully used in parts of South America; and, if not, whether it can be technically investigated to ascertain if it could he used with equal success in Great Britain.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, I hope that I may be permitted to answer this important Question, in some detail. Vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease has long been practised in South America, and also in other parts of the world where the disease is endemic, or enzootic, and widespread. Information about the methods used was given in Chapter III of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Cmd. 9214) published in 1954 (the Gowers Committee).
My right honourable friend is familiar with the situation in the South American countries. Indeed, three of our veterinary officers are permanently stationed there to assist the authorities in dealing with foot-and-mouth disease, particularly in 'the context of the fulfilment of the Bledisloe Agreement, which regulates the transit and inspection of animals and carcases intended for export to this country. Recently, new measures have been introduced in the Argentine, and we welcome these further steps towards the ultimate goal of eradication.
My Lords, vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease is sound policy only where there is so much of it that compulsory slaughter is impracticable. In our own country, which is an island, we are fortunate that the disease is not always with us. When an outbreak does occur in this country, by far the most effective way of dealing with it is to stamp it out by the compulsory slaughter of infected animals and dangerous con
262
tacts. The Departmental Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Ernest Gowers, to which I have already referred, was emphatic that on economic grounds this was the right policy for this country.
Finally, the European Commission for the Control of Foot-and-Mouth Disease, to which we belong, has recommended that those member countries which are not yet in a position to use yet in a position to use compulsory slaughter should seek, by vaccination and other control measures, to reduce the incidence of the disease to the point where a slaughter policy becomes practicable. Nobody doubts the wisdom of this policy objective, which other countries, less fortunate than our own, are striving to attain.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that last year alone it cost us about £2 million in compensation for the animals that had to be slaughtered? Would it not be well worth while to see if we could not work out while to see if we could not work out some policy whereby we could inoculate animals or do something? This situation is very difficult for farmers, their workers and the nation as whole.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am well aware that it cost about £2 million this year and about £2¼ million in the great outbreak in 1952 in this country. But if the noble Lord will read the Gowers Report he will see that the estimate there is that to do a proper vaccination policy would cost at least £24 million a year. Vaccines may have got cheaper, but the cost would be infinitely more than the cost of compensation for eradication.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary would agree that it is a fairly widespread opinion here that the slaughter policy has been a reasonably good one in this country for a long time past. But is it not a fact, as reported in the Farming Express last week, that in Belgium, in particular. where they have suffered again and again from the results of endemic foot-and-mouth disease in Germany and contiguous countries, they are now using a new vaccine, and that the results have been so stupendous that there has been a reduction in the number of cases in one

263
year from nearly 400 down to 3? The success of that policy there surely means that we ought to be considering this new vaccine, and whether, in fact, in the long run we should get a more efficient and probably cheaper method of dealing with the disease than we have at present. I am not running down the past policy at all.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I think there is a basic misconception here. I have not the figures for Belgium in my head, but I have them for Holland, because I also read those articles in the Farming Express, in which Holland was mentioned. I wonder whether noble Lords are aware that in our worst out-break since the war, in 1952, we had 495 outbreaks. In 1951, Holland had more than 20,000 outbreaks, with a much smaller livestock population. Vaccination is the only possible way in a country where the disease, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has said, is endemic or enzootic, as it is not in this country. If you can get it down to manageable proportions by vaccination, then you adopt the slaughter policy. In our worst years we have under 500 outbreaks a year: these Continental countries have tens of thousands.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl if experiments are going on with a view to the cure of this disease, or if that is impossible because you would have to slaughter the animals on which you experiment?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: It is not a question of a cure for this disease. The disease is seldom fatal: the difficulty is the after-effects of this disease. They are all listed in the Gowers Report, and I am sure that the noble Lord knows of them. They range over the most horrifying ailments that cattle can have, from abortion to losing their feet, and a general lowering of productivity, especially as to milk. It is not a question of curing this disease but of stopping it spreading.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: But would the noble Earl not think it wise to give some special attention to the results of the new vaccine at the moment being used in these Continental countries? Because although, as I say, we agree with the policy
264
adopted in the past, we do get regular recurrences of infection, not only from swill but also from germs carried by birds from the Continent. It seems to me that we should give attention to this kind of progress right through these countries on the Continent from which we get that sort of infection, watch it for a year or two and then reconsider our position here.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am not prepared to say that we can reconsider our position. What I do say is that our laboratory at Pirbright, under Dr. Galloway, is probably the leading research laboratory on this disease in the world; and we are working hard on it all the time. I am not aware, without notice, of this new vaccine, but it is probably a new method of producing vaccine from a dead tissue instead of from a live tissue. Economies in vaccine production are going on all the time, and will continue; but the policy of vaccination would not be right in this country.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, can the Minister say whether he knows, or whether the Government know, anything about the practice in the Scandinavian countries, I think it is, of treating foot-and-mouth disease by immersing the cattle in mud baths? I understand that is has been very successful.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am not personally aware of that, but will take the advice of my experts and will let the noble Lord know what we think about it.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the exhaustive answers which he has given to us. But would it not be well worth while to look further into this matter and see if we cannot follow up some process which would help, in addition to what is being done now? He has no doubt seen the resolution passed by the National Farmers' Union this very week, trying to stop animals coming to us from the Argentine. I am sure the situation would benefit if we could give it a little more attention than we are giving it to-day.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I do not want to prolong this discussion —this is not a debate—but I cannot allow the impression to be given that we are not doing all we can. We are very

265
fully considering all the latest forms of research in this country, and I could not admit that there is any new avenue that we ought to investigate in that way.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH ETC. (PENSIONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.
FLOOD PREVENTION (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

ELECTRICITY (AMENDMENT) BILL
2.48 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Extension of powers of Central Electricity Generating Board]:
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved, in subsection (I), after "have power to" to insert "process and". The noble Lord said: I have on the Paper two Amendments, the second of which is, in fact, directly consequential to the first. In moving this Amendment, I think I should repeat that my noble friends welcome this Bill, and the fact that I am moving an Amendment to it in no way reflects any dislike of the purpose of the Bill. The purpose of this Amendment is simply to allow the Central Electricity Generating Board, if it should wish, not only to manufacture radio-isotopes, the power to do which it is given in the Bill, but also to process them and to market them—but primarily to process them. This appears to be only a very minor and rather theoretical proposition, but I think it raises quite an important issue.
Your Lordships will remember that the Electricity Act. 1957, restricted the then Central Electricity Authority (now
266
the Central Electricity Generating Board) from carrying out functions other than those which were strictly related in one way or another to the production of electricity. In order, therefore, to enable the Central Electricity Generating Board to manufacture radioisotopes, the Government had to come to Parliament to get a new Act of Parliament. The noble Lord, the Paymaster General, gave us a very clear account on Second Reading of the use of radioactive isotopes, and I would not attempt to go too deeply into it again. We know that there is a growing demand for radio-isotopes, and that they are an important new development and can be of very great value to the community in a number of ways.
Perhaps it is worth reminding your Lordships that an isotope is an atom of the same chemical nature as another atom, but having a different weight, or mass; and that though it is chemically the same, it is significantly different in this respect. Because of the surplus capacity of the Generating Board's atomic power stations, they cannot help irradiating material of one kind or another. At this point I should like to be a little technical, because my Amendment depends on it.
As I understand it, in order to retain an even neutron flux in the reactor it is necessary to have certain absorbent materials, and I understand (though I may be wrong) that these absorbent materials are not necessarily the same as the control rods, which I have always understood to be made of cadium and which are part of the controlling machinery of the pile. There are these materials, maybe iron or stainless steel, which are irradiated, and it is now proposed to make use of these neutrons by irradiating some particular useful materials. I do not know whether they are proposing to do this to what I might call the more esoteric isotopes, or whether it will be confined to simpler materials, like cobalt. But I do not wish to take that any further.
The point is that when the bars of irradiated material emerge from the pile they then have to be processed. And this is the point where my Amendment comes in, because this processing, which at the moment is done, and properly done, at the Radio-chemical Centre belonging to

267
the Atomic Energy Authority, involves breaking down these materials, encapsulating them, or incorporating them into whatever form is required by industry, research, or the medical profession; and, above all, providing complete protection so that the dangerous radiations cannot get outside and do damage.
There is no proposal at present to suggest that any body other than the Atomic Energy Authority should do this. What we do not understand is why, in fact, this power to process should be denied to the Central Electricity Generating Board, while, as the noble Lord said on Second Reading, there is nothing to prevent private firms from doing it. What can be argued should be properly done, certainly by the Atomic Energy Authority, might one day require to be done by the Central Electricity Generating Board. Under the Bill as it stands, that will not be possible, yet private firms will be allowed to do it when the time comes.
The time has not come, and probably it will be quite a long way off before it is done. The Minister has said on this question that, if necessary, he would come to Parliament to obtain these powers. I would suggest that this situation is an absurdity, and that it is part and parcel of a certain prejudice which was shown in the 1957 Act in restricting a very successful nationalised authority. I would not accuse the noble Lord himself for one moment of this sort of prejudice. We know that he is deeply interested in the success of industry, whether it be nationally owned or privately owned. But I would urge him to consider what the position of the privately owned company is.
We are to-day almost like a company meeting (if I may go back to a useful analogy) which is called to consider a change in the articles. Practically any company, public or private, has almost infinite powers in its articles to do almost anything, yet we are quite unnecessarily restricting a publicly owned authority from undertaking a natural, and possibly useful and profitable development. I do not see why this should be so: all the more so since the Minister, on Second Reading in another place said that he was aware that the Bill referring to the sale to other persons "opens the door". He said—
268
and rightly so—that that door is not likely quickly to be opened. because the Radio-chemical Centre at Amersham is rather a complicated place. But he went on to say that he hoped that eventually others would come in, because other benefits would be conferred.
I do not see why we should have to face this situation. Why, in due course, should not the Central Electricity Generating Board, because the Atomic Energy Authority's resources are fully occupied, be permitted to go into this processing? As the noble Lord knows, all firms look for an opportunity of diversifying their activities. At the same time, one also realises that, if they are wise, they do not try to diversify into fields about which they know little. But the Central Electricity Generating Board will have great knowledge and will have been handling these radio-isotopes, in their primary form as they come from the reactor. What the Board is doing, in fact, is precisely what the Coal Board now does when it makes bricks from ashes. The Central Electricity Generating Board is here making bricks from its own ashes—making radio-isotopes from the materials which, in one form or another, it puts into the reactor.
We have—and this is acknowledged—a highly successful electricity industry. Prices have scarcely increased, so far as I can ascertain, since before the war. The purpose of this Amendment is to do what the Paymaster General went out of his way to say the Central Electricity Generating Board would not be enabled to do. He said that they would not be able to process. I think he also said that they would not be able to market; but, so far as I can see, under the Bill that would be possible. But they should be allowed to process and be given some sort of freedom, and thereby, I hope, save the time of both the Minister, or his successors, and Parliament at a later date. I beg 'to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, after ("to") insert ("process and").—(Lord Shackleton.)
2.58 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD MILLS): I am glad to acknowledge the forward-looking aspect of this matter on the part of the noble Lord, and also the fact that he recognises that I personally should not be concerned whether

269
a nationally owned or a private industry were involved here. I should like to explain the position as I see it. Perhaps I ought to say, although I think the noble Lord has made it clear, that the effect of this Amendment, and of the proposed Amendment in line 13, on page 3, which is consequential, would be to empower the Generating Board to process commercially radioactive material produced in their reactors. In other words, it would empower them to set up a factory like the Atomic Energy Authority's Radio-chemical Centre at Amersham, where practically all the processing of radio-isotopes in this country is now done. They would have power not only to fashion from the radioactive materials produced in their reactors a variety of radioactive sources, now in demand for radiography and radiotherapy, but also to manufacture the even wider range of radio 'chemicals into which such materials can be compounded for all manner of medical, industrial and research purposes. The range of products may be expected to increase. As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said on Second Reading, the uses for these products are infinite and we are only at their beginning as a research tool.
The principal job of the Generating Board is to generate electricity. When the Board's powers were last under discussion in Parliament, during the passage of the Electricity Act, 1957, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor quoted what my right honourable friend the then Paymaster General had recently said in another place, namely, that if nationalised Boards were to carry out their purpose—in this case the generation and supply of electricity—they ought not to wander into wider fields of activity. In the Government's view, that principle must be maintained unless there are exceptional reasons for departing from it.
We believe that there are exceptional reasons for permitting the Generating Board to irradiate material in their reactors as a commercial venture. The capacity for irradiation in the Board's nuclear power stations will be on a scale comparable with anywhere else in the world. It will be made available at little cost and with little, if any, extra staff at a time when the country's other irradiation capacity—that is, the capacity of the Atomic Energy Authority—is near-
270
ing its limit and when demand for radioactive isotopes at home and abroad is expanding. If the Board are not allowed to use their irradiation capacity for the production of radioactive isotopes. it will the wasted and the United Kingdom will lose the business. Consequently, we consider that an extension of their manufacturing powers in the form proposed in the Bill is fully justified. I am just putting this on record, although I know that noble Lords opposite are fully in support of this proposal.
But when it comes to extending the Board's powers still further, to include the processing of radioactive isotopes after irradiation, as the Amendment seeks to do, these arguments do not apply. The Atomic Energy Authority, who by virtue of Section 2 (2) of the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954, have power to manufacture and sell radioactive isotopes, already have manufacturing capacity for this purpose in Amersham. This capacity has recently been expanded. The Authority have at Amersham a highly qualified and experienced staff and excellent equipment. They also have an efficient organisation for marketing and distribution. In due course, private firms may wish to make their own contribution, in resources and ideas, to the advancement of the industry, but at present there is nothing to suggest that the United Kingdom's trade in radioactive isotopes, either at home or abroad, would be better served by empowering the Generating Board to duplicate the Authority's Amersham facilities, with the prospect of additional capital expenditure by the Board and the recruitment of rare specialised staff.
As I said on Second Reading, the Government consider that if circumstances should change and the position needed to be reviewed, then Parliament should be consulted again; but at the present time there is no need for this Amendment. I think it would be wrong to encourage the Generating Board at this time to spend their time looking forward to doing what another public authority is doing well and efficiently, and I would suggest to your Lordships that the Amendment should not be accepted.
LORD TAYLOR: It is interesting to hear the Minister advocating monopoly

271
socialism. There are cases when competitive socialism is desirable, and I should have thought that this was one of them and that it would be an excellent thing to empower the Central Electricity Generating Board to do what may ultimately be done by private industry and is certainly now very well done by another socialised organisation, the Atomic Energy Authority. These isotopes are the by-product of the work of the Authority and that the by-product should be processed by the producer seems a most reasonable proposition. Even if it is not going to occur now, it may well be— as I believe that the Minister himself previously said—that it would be desirable to do this at some time in the future. Why not give permissive legislation now, and thus save the time of Parliament?
It is inconceivable that the Electricity Generating Board would wish to produce isotopes in competition with Amersham and to draw off the scarce supply of scientists, but it may well be that in future the demand for isotopes will grow and it may become convenient to have a processing plant near to a producing plant, or even part of a producing plant. Especially if a plant were producing only one kind of isotope, that would seem the most economic and sensible thing for us to do. I hope that the Government will have another look at this Amendment, because I think that it is a valuable one.
LORD SHACKLETON: From the Paymaster General's reply, I understand that the only reason why the Central Electricity Generating Board are allowed to manufacture radioactive isotopes is the very exceptional one that they cannot help manufacturing them and will go on doing it, whether we like it or not. Judging from what the noble Lord said, if the Government could find a way to stop them from manufacturing isotopes, they would do so.
It seems to me to be extraordinary to say that we ought not to encourage the Board to do anything other than generate electricity. They are a responsible body. The last thing they will do is to indulge in expensive, time-absorbing and distracting activities unless they regard them as necessary,
272
and I cannot understand why the Government want them to go in one direction and not in another. If they proposed to confine manufacture purely to the Atomic Energy Authority's plant at Amersham, that would be understandable; but apparently they are perfectly prepared to let others move into this field and, if there is a profitable opportunity, use up some o f the nation's resources of scientists. This is a simple and easy Amendment for the Government to accept. It makes no immediate change, but it would be an indication, if I may say so, of a rather purer intention in the matter and might well save the time of Parliament on another occasion.
LORD MILLS: I thought that I had made myself quite clear: but apparently I had not. The point is that at Amersham the Atomic Energy Authority have all the resources and scientific skill to deal with this problem. We are anxious that the Generating Board should not be empowered to dissipate their energies to look for staff to do the thing which the Atomic Energy Authority are well qualified to do.
Then I come to private enterprise. Private enterprise possesses many skills and many technical staffs which might in some direction or another contribute to the national benefit in this particular field; and if so, we do not intend to exclude them. The Generating Board are concerned, and very efficiently concerned, with the generation of electricity. As the noble Lord has said, with the possession of these reactors they are in a position to use them to the benefit of this country in the production of radio-isotopes; and this Bill would empower them to do that. I see no case made out for empowering the Generating Board at this stage to embark on something that is not required and is, in fact, unnecessary. I ask your Lordships to agree to the rejection of this Amendment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: We always listen to the noble Lord with great respect because he comes here at all times with a knowledge of the case he has to defend or advocate, and on this occasion I have listened carefully to the case which he has so understandably put up. But what I cannot get through my mind is this.

273
It is true that the Central Electricity Board have as their prime function the generation of electricity. But it is frankly admitted by the Minister that after they have done their generating of electricity they will have an abundant waste of their materials which could be profitably used. The Government have recognised that fact by producing a Bill to enable the electricity stations to go into this production of radio-isotopes. In the process beyond that, they are fully contemplating, if I understand the Minister aright, that when the capacity of Amersham is fully absorbed in the further processes which might be entered into, there is private enterprise which can do it. The quotation made by the Minister of what was said by one of his ministerial colleagues three years ago is used against the Amendment on this occasion to show that it is a quite unnecessary function. and it is claimed that it is restricting the undue development of a nationalised body by dealing with the matter in this way. I therefore do not accept the argument, and I should be quite prepared to divide on the Amendment.
LORD MILLS: May I reply to the noble Viscount? The capacity of the Generating Board to irradiate materials will be used to the full. We are already approaching the limit of what the Atomic Energy Authority can do there. But the Atomic Energy Authority possess the means of processing, and they have added to their capacity at Amersham. They have the staffs and the marketing techniques, and they have studied and developed the whole of this process. I suggest that it would be reasonable, if we wanted a still further capacity to do that, to look first and see
whether it would not be wise and proper, and economic, to develop Amersham and what is being done there, rather than start a new body, that does not exist for this purpose, for this new business, when new staffs would have to be created, the techniques learned and so on. They do not in the course of their duties acquire, or need to acquire, these techniques; but it may be that some industry concerned with the use of radioisotopes might have some ideas and might think that they can be processed in another form. That is why I say that this Amendment is unnecessary. If it ever becomes necessary, we will put it forward again. I must persist in saying that I advise your Lordships to reject this Amendment.
LORD LATHAM: Could the noble Lord say whether private enterprise can be prevented from processing this radioactive material?
LORD MILLS: There are certain regulations in force, under other Acts, where they have to get authority to deal with these materials—the restoring of them and so forth. But I do not think we seek to prevent private enterprise from contributing anything that they can properly contribute.
LORD LATHAM: But not a nationalised undertaking?
LORD MILLS: The whole processing. handling and marketing is now under the control of a nationalised undertaking.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 55.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Henderson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Latham. L.

Shepherd, L.

Amwell, L.

Lawson, L.

Stonham, L.

Brand, L.

Listowel, E.

Taylor, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Uvedale of North End, L.

Chorley, L.

Meston, L.

Williams, L.

Dalton, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wise, L.

Furness, V.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Hall, V.

Rea, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Bathurst, E.

Derwent, L.

Ampthill, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Dowding, L.

Arran, E.

Conesford, L.

Dundee, E.

Atholl, D.

Cottesloe, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Auckland, L.

Davidson, V.

Ferrier, L.

Fortescue, E.

Lothian, M.

Saltoun, L.

Freyberg, L.

Manoroft, L.

Sinclair, L.

Gage, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Gifford, L.

Merrivale, L.

Soulbury, V.

Goschen, V.

Mills. L.

Spens, L.

Hacking, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hastings, L.

Newall, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hawke, L.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Stratheden and Campbeli, L

Horsbrugh, B.

Rathcavan, L.

Swansea, L.

Howe, E.

Ravensdale of Kedleston, B.

Swinton, E.

Jessel, L.

Rugby, L.

Teviot, L.

Killearn, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Waldegrave, E.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

St. Oswald, L.

Wolverton, L.

Long, V.

On Question. Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL [H.L.]
3.28 p.m.
Further considered on Report (according to Order).
Fifth Schedule (continued):
Part VI
Intoxicating liquor
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, on paragraph 2, in Committee my noble friend Lord Hawke moved an Amendment to exempt beer used in making "shandy-gaff", which I accepted. We agreed that it should be extended to include cider, which is done in this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 9, at end insert—
("Provided that beer or cider shall be exempted from the requirements of this paragraph when sold as a constituent of a mixture containing—

(a) both beer and cider; or

(b) any soft drink.")—(The Earl of Dundee.)

LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for meeting me in this case, although I am not sure whether it is wise to suggest to the populace that beer and cider should be mixed in the same drink.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved in paragraph 3, after "rum" to insert "vodka". The noble Duke said: The Scotch Whisky Association are somewhat worried about the fact that neither vodka nor brandy is included in Part VI of the Fifth Schedule. They fully realise, as, indeed, I think everyone does who listened on the Committee stage of this Bill, that there are great difficulties about including brandy in this Part of the Bill, but I feel that vodka might have been included, and I have therefore put down an Amendment accordingly. I may say that, so far as I can ascertain, the distributors of most of the vodka in this country are also keen that vodka should be included, because they feel that if it is not it might get a bad name through being sold in what would appear to be short measure.
So far as I can make out, the Government's argument in the Committee stage for the non-inclusion of vodka was that the sales in this country were negligible and that if they ever ceased to be negligible they could introduce an Order in Council to include vodka. Unfortunately, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise do not publish figures for the amount of vodka that is taken out of bond each year separately from other spirits; they publish only separate figures for brandy, rum, whisky and gin. Therefore, I have not been able to ascertain the exact amount of vodka consumed in this country, but I have every reason to believe that during the course of 1960 much more than 100,000 proof gallons were consumed and that the increase in 1960 over 1959 was round about 100 per cent. It is interesting to note that in America, where vodka, I do not say became known, but became a recognised drink rather longer ago than it has done here, twelve years ago the consumption of vodka was virtually nil, whereas last year 11 million proof

277
gallons were drunk. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this rate of increase is quite phenomenal, and if we have anything like it in this country—and the figures of 1960 and 1959 appear to suggest we might—when this Part of the Bill becomes law, which is not for another three years, the consumption of vodka will be quite considerable and we really ought to do something about it.
Another way in which I have tried to compare sales of vodka with those of rum, which is included and therefore the sales are not considered negligible, was to go to some of the bars I knew and, at great cost both to my pocket and no doubt eventually to my health, to try to find out how the sales in those particular places compare. I am prepared to admit that all these bars were in the West End of London and were not perhaps typical of the whole country, but certainly in this part of London at any rate the sale of vodka seems to be far greater than that of rum. They all said that in the winter the consumption. of rum and vodka was very much the same and that during the summer they sold anything from three to six times as much vodka as rum, and in their opinion the sales of vodka were 'increasing fairly fast and fairly substantially. Therefore, I feel that as this Part does not become operative for three years, the Government might accept this Amendment, because otherwise I think that in three years' time they will have to introduce an Order in Council to include vodka as well, as the figures seem to me to show that by then the consumption of vodka will be nearly as great as the consumption of rum is now. Therefore I beg to move that vodka be included.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 17, after (" rum") insert ("vodka ").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, having failed to save the time of the Government and the House on the previous Amendment, I ant happy to join with the noble Duke in the hope that the Government will save themselves trouble in the future. I think there is little doubt, from the figures he has obtained and the figures I have been given, that the drinking of vodka is on the increase, and this is noticeably so, I am told, in Scotland, where there has been an increase of about 150 per cent.
278
in the last year. It is not for me to expatiate on the virtues of vodka. I am told you can drink it without becoming fat, spotty or developing a hangover, according to some of the publicity in favour of it. But whatever it may be, it is obviously likely to be the sort of drink which will rank, perhaps on a lesser stage, alongside gin and whisky and rum.
The arguments in favour of putting it on that basis seem to me to be perfectly good, and there do not seem to be any strong arguments against it, beyond perhaps the general desire not to do more than is necessary. But I think the Government will save themselves time if they now accept the noble Duke's Amendment. I am told that most of the vodka we drink in this country is, in fact, British vodka, although Polish and Russian vodka is available also. I am also told that Mr. Khrushchev drinks whisky. I feel this is a clear and easy point, and I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
LORD REA: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, may I ask, on a point of information, whether it is considered that the word "whisky" in line 11, spelt without an "e", which would normally be Scottish whisky, also includes Irish whiskey which is spelt with an "e"?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we cannot have two alternative spellings in the same clause in an Act of Parliament. I think it is better to assume that the lesser is included in the greater. When my noble friend, who has, if I may say so, moved this Amendment in such a very interesting and cogent manner, told your Lordships the day before yesterday that he hated milk, I expect some of your Lordships may have wondered what it was he drank instead. Now we know. The argument for not including vodka in the Bill at present—the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, may not think it is a strong argument, but I think it is at least a good argument—is that we should not do more than is necessary, as the noble Lord himself said. After all, what the Bill does here is to impose an obligation upon the seller to display a notice stating the amount served, and this may mean a rather onerous obligation upon some of those who sell liquors in restaurants, in the ordinary lounges of hotels and by way of room service to

279
hotel bedrooms. We do not want to make it even more onerous for such persons by covering liquors which are not in very common consumption and which are asked for only infrequently by their customers. I am sure my noble friend would think it a great nuisance and not especially appropriate if we were to include Atholl Brose in the terms of this Bill.
Both the noble Duke and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, have given us figures—very impressive figures—to show that there has been an enormous percentage increase in vodka consumption during the last year, which I have no doubt may have been the case. The only figures I have are for the imports of vodka from Russia. As Lord Shackleton has pointed out, I do not know how much vodka is made in Britain, so these figures may not give the whole picture; but they are only 0·2 per cent. of the consumption of gin. 0·15 per cent. of the consumption of whisky and 0·7 per cent. of the consumption of rum. I admit that, if you included British vodka, in regard to which I have not gat figures, these percentages might be slightly larger, but the proportion of Russian vodka at least is extremely small.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I intervene? The whole of this case is based on British vodka and not imported vodka. The noble Earl surely cannot reject the argument on figures that have no relevance to the Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I said that the only figures I have are for Russian vodka; I did not claim that they are conclusive. It may be true that the Board of Trade is very much behind-hand in this matter and does not realise how quickly people are getting to drink vodka, but all I can say is that on our present information it has not yet reached such proportions as to merit inclusion at this moment in the Bill, and that as soon as it does, if it does, it will be brought in by Order under Clause 22.
Both my noble friend behind me and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I thought seemed to suggest that there was some disadvantage in waiting and introducing any other kind of liquor,
280
such as vodka, by Order under Clause 22. I do not think there is any disadvantage at all in waiting. As the noble Duke said, he expected that in three years' time, when these provisions of the Bill come into force the consumption of vodka will have reached such a high figure that it will then be right to bring it in. That calculation may or may not be right. But it seems to me that there is everything to be said for waiting to see whether this calculation is going to be right or not. In regard to the stamping of measures or any kind of preliminary work there is no disadvantage in waiting to make sure that enough vodka is going to be drunk to make inclusion under this Bill justifiable. I think it involves no disadvantage, and it is in every way more sensible that we should begin with the three kinds of drinks which we know ought to be included because they are drunk on a large enough scale, and any other kind of spirit for which a good case is established can then easily be brought in later by an Order under Clause 22. There is no disadvantage whatever in taking this course. I should have thought there was a disadvantage in putting into the Bill something about which you are not yet sure.
LORD JESSEL: It seems to me quite extraordinary that the Board of Trade have not furnished the noble Earl with any figures at all about home-produced vodka. Surely it is an ascertainable figure. Presumably there is an Excise Duty on it. We are all in the dark about this. Will we know the figures in three years time? I must say that I have every sympathy with the noble Duke's Amendment. I am not at all convinced by the explanation of the noble Earl.
3.44 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, when I put down this Amendment originally on the Committee stage vodka was coupled with brandy. The reason why I put it down was because, on reading through the Bill when it was first printed, I discovered a number of points which appeared to me, as a man in the street, to indicate where the authors of the Bill has obviously gone wrong because they were not conversant with what went on in the world. Therefore, I put down a series of about a dozen or so Amendments. Quite a number of those have since been accepted.

281
On the Committee stage I withdrew an Amendment concerning vodka and brandy, first because I had no supporting evidence from the trade except that I knew that they did not object to it, and secondly, because I realised that to enforce the measurement of liqueur brandy, for instance, would be rather an impossibility and perhaps undesirable. But, in the outcome, the trade has approached my noble friend the Duke of Atholl and has given him figures which should be available to any Ministry that chooses to search for them. To my mind, he has made out art overwhelming case. I suggest that this is a typical example of what I have sometimes called to your Lordships' attention, which is the weakness of the working of the British system of government—namely, that no Ministry cart aver do anything until it has on its files an alibi for doing it. The alibi on the file in this case happened to be the negligible figures of the imports of Polish or Russian vodka. Of course the figure needed is that for the consumption of vodka to-day. That is not available on the file and, therefore, the Ministry cannot act— they are, in fact, catching trains advertised in last year's Bradshaw.
I think that we on this side are convinced that this is a growing trade. One has only to look at the advertisements. One has only to read, in those papers which instruct one how to "make one's party go", the recipes that "make the party go". One realises that this is a growing business; and it is growing very fast indeed. I do not think we ought to be put off with arguments such as it would be a hardship to hotels because they would have to put up the price of vodka in their corridors and, was it? bedrooms; and that such an imposition would not be justified in view of the negligible consumption. This, I think, is a very strong case. It cannot be proved at this moment by hard-and-fast figures in the Board of Trade file, and that is the only thing that is wrong with the case.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, if I may be allowed to say one more word in answer to my noble friend who says that the Board of Trade have not the figures. If that is so, why cannot he wait until they have the figures? We are not losing anything. This provision cannot operate for three years, anyhow. Why cannot he wait until they get the
282
figures that would justify the inclusion of vodka in the Bill?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I should have thought that the point the noble Earl has just made emphasises the extreme weakness displayed by the Board of Trade in this particular matter. Surely one should have the right to expect that the Government, in replying to an Amendment, would be armed with these figures. Indeed, it must now be some weeks since the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, raised this point; and the Board of Trade have had plenty of time since then to ascertain the figures. I do not know in terms of proof-gallons what the current consumption of vodka is, but I can assure the noble Earl that this increase is obviously not confined to the West End of London, because one can now see vodka sold and asked for quite commonly in rural pubs: I do not mean roadhouses, which are the equivalent of a West End pub, but in just ordinary out of the way rural pubs. There you can see bottles of vodka being called for and asked for. That, I think, is evidence that the demand is not only increasing but fairly general, and I should have thought there was no case to defer a decision on this point. I would point out to the noble Earl that we on this side of the House put down an Amendment to include spirits generally. I thought that, on the whole, perhaps his objections to that—
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. I see the point of the noble Lord's argument; but surely that is an argument in favour of not taking one particular spirit and dealing with it in isolation. We have not the facts on which to deal with it.
LORD STONHAM: I was just about to say, when the noble Earl intervened, that on that occasion I rather felt that he had made his case for not accepting a wide generalisation of spirits instead of particularising. But we did at that time point out the difficulty of taking the names of certain spirits and adding to them. On this occasion it appears that on this one the case has been made—
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No one has made a case. All your Lordships have done is, as I quite recognise, to com-

283
plain that we have not made out a case against it by producing figures which are not available. You have not made out a case in favour of it at all.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the figures which my noble friend has given me show that approximately 100,000 cases of vodka have been sold in the last year. If those figures are available to a private Member of your Lordships' House, they ought to be available to the Government. The only suggestion I am going to make is that the actual facts are ascertainable and can be ascertained by the Government between now and Third Reading. I hope that the noble Earl will give an undertaking that this matter will be considered between now and Third Reading, so that an Amendment can be moved and accepted on that occasion.
The EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, in reply to that, of course I will see whether figures can be obtained. But I must tell your Lordships that at present there are no official figures for the production or consumption of vodka in this country, and we do not want to act on guesswork. But the Board of Trade are willing and anxious to bring vodka into this Bill if they are satisfied that, on the increased consumption, there is a case for doing so. I think it is reasonable to point out to your Lordships that we are not losing anything by waiting a few years for more evidence.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, am I to understand the noble Earl to say that there were no official figures available for the production of vodka?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: That is so. But I will see whether I can get any kind of figures, official or otherwise.
LORD SHEPHERD: It seems strange that you can get Excise without knowing what are the figures.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am rather shocked by the Minister. I, too, have no figures about vodka. I know perfectly well that more vodka is being drunk, because I now hear it being ordered, and one never used to hear it being ordered. But I am shocked because he says that we should wait three years and get figures. The object of the Bill is to stop the public being swindled
284
and to see that drinks are in proper measure. There is sufficient evidence that quite a lot of vodka is being drunk, sufficient for us to take notice of it. Are the public to be swindled for three years?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: You can be swindled with whisky for three years to your heart's content. We are not putting vodka into any different class of urgency. During that three years you can be swindled just as much as you can be swindled with vodka.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, would the noble Earl admit that the three years is to enable the purveyors of intoxicating liquors to prepare? Why should one be prevented from preparing in respect of vodka?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, if one prepares in respect of the others with all measures, surely it is not much trouble to bring in vodka.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask one question? I am sorry to continue the discussion, but the noble Earl mentioned that figures were available for Russian vodka. Does that include—I do not suppose it does—Polish vodka? It is in the shops, and I believe that it is the best kind that one can get.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It does not.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I cannot see why my noble friend makes so much fuss about the notice. If you are displaying notices for gin, whisky and rum, would it not be easy to print another line in the notice saying, "vodka 3s"? As he says, gin, whisky and rum are so much more common that they will have to be on the notice anyway, and I cannot see that there is any difficulty about that. If we just add vodka in three years it will mean that all the hotels which have notices printed must have them reprinted and have vodka added. I should also like to point out that the Russians have been very reluctant heretofore to send us Russian vodka because they like trading on a barter basis, and they wish to get hold of Scottish whisky, surprising though it may seem, for their barter basis. I believe, although I have not checked up on this point, that quite recently a contract was signed whereby we exported whisky to

285
Russia and they exported vodka to us. I feel that in a year's time the figures for Russian vodka may go up considerably. At the moment I think that anyone who drinks vodka knows perfectly well that about 98 per cent. of the vodka drunk in this country is not produced in Russia and never has been near Russia. It is the same with Kümmel, which originally came from Latvia: but everyone now knows that there is none from there and that virtually all of it comes from Denmark or Holland. I am thoroughly unconvinced by the Government's argument and I cannot see why I should withdraw this Amendment.
4.0 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in paragraph 3 (a), to leave out "one of the following quantities, that is to say, one quarter". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 89 in the Marshalled List. It may well be to the convenience of your Lordships that I should also include in my remarks Amendment No. 90, which is related to the purpose sought in Amendment No. 89. The purpose sought is to substitute for the confusion of three measures to be used in connection with intoxicating liquors—namely, a quarter, one-fifth and one-sixth of a gill—-one measure only, namely, one-fifth of a gill. This matter was argued out on Committee stage, and the noble Earl was good enough to say that he would consider the submissions which were put forward in support of it. Nothing having appeared on the Paper, I gather that the noble Earl has done so but offers no suggestion for acceptance of the Amendment.
The Amendment is designed, as I have said, to have one measure and one measure only. The Institute of Weights and Measures Administration strongly opposed the legalisation of the one-sixth of a gill and its multiples for the sale of spirits. The Hodgson Committee was quite emphatic against the one-sixth of a gill and the one-third of a gill, and recommend one-fifth of a gill, which is one fluid-ounce, as a suitable measure for this purpose. To permit one-sixth, one-fifth and a quarter of a gill would add yet more denominations to the imperial system of weights and measures, when the object, as I have indicated—
286
and it is the purpose of my Amendment —should be simplification. The measures are too close to other measures or measure sizes to make ready discernment possible, whilst in many cases the local authorities would have to purchase new local and working standards. I understand that, while it is the case that one-sixth of a gill is very common as a measure in Scotland, as I said on Committee stage when submitting this Amendment, the Association of County Councils of Scotland would, I am informed, support the proposal that one-fifth of a gill should be substituted. I am also informed—this may not be excessively impressive, but it is worth mentioning—that the Governments of the Isle of Man and of Jersey legalised one-fifth of a gill several years ago, and, so far as can be ascertained, there was no undue difficulty experienced in putting it into operation.
In his reply during the Committee stage, the noble Earl referred to the fact that notices would be exhibited. But notices can be changed at any time of the day. It is considered essential for the protection of the interests of the consumer that liquor should be sold on the basis of one measure only, and of its multiples, and it is considered, as I have said, that one-fifth is the most appropriate measure for that purpose. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 14, leave out from first ("of ") to (" one-fifth ").—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, this matter was discussed very fully in Committee, and I am sure your Lordships will not want an elaborate repetition of the arguments which took place then. I think it is, from many points of view, a pity that these different measures have become established by custom in different places, but if we were to have a uniform measure in force by law I, personally, should very much prefer the quarter gill, which is common in Scotland and which, indeed, was common—
LORD LATHAM: One-fifth of a gill has this advantage, that it does equal one fluid ounce. A quarter does not.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I know; but one-fifth is not so big. I do not know whether the noble Lord's memory goes

287
back so far, but the quarter gill did prevail within living memory almost all over Great Britain. It is only within the last 50 years, I think, that these different measures have become customary. But they have become customary, and it is questionable whether it would be wise to interfere with them by Statute, at least all at once. The first thing which this Bill does—and the most important thing —is to make sure that people will get the measure which they are entitled to get, whether it is one-sixth, one-fifth or a quarter. At present, there are no means of enforcing that at all with regard to these spirits—whisky, gin and rum. As I stressed in Committee, and would, with your Lordships' permission, stress again, our main objective in this part of the Bill is to see that, whether the accepted measure is a quarter of a gill, one-fifth of a gill or one-sixth of a gill, the customer will get a quarter or a fifth or a sixth, as the case may be, and not something less. That is what we are doing here, and we are doing it for the first time.
Now the Amendment proposes that we do something else: that we should interfere with all these local customs which have grown up with regard to the exact measures, and should insist on uniformity all over Great Britain. I do not think we should be justified in doing that now, because I believe that a number of the clients at public-houses and at other places of refreshment, who have become accustomed to being served in these unfortunately varying measures, may want to go on being served in the same measures, and may not want to change their habits all at once. As I pointed out in Committee, if there is in any particular locality a general feeling that they do not like the one-sixth and that they would rather have the one-fifth, there is no reason why the proprietor of the house should not avail himself of the choice which the law will now permit him to make between one-sixth and one-fifth or between one-fifth and a quarter.
I think that, owing to the established variety of local custom, which is a fact, it is better to leave the choice as it is in the Bill, giving the man who owns the public-house three different choices under the law in accordance with the established habits of his customers. If his customers change their views, very well; he can
288
change his measure, so long as he confines himself to one of the three which are allowed. But I do not think it would be justifiable to try to do too much at once and not only introduce this new legal provision, which will protect the consumer, but also make it the law that the consumer shall alter the habits which he has at present and shall conform to a single uniform standard, which he may not desire to do.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, would the noble Earl say whether the Board of Trade consulted the Institute of Weights and Measures Administration on this particular point? I am officially informed that that Institute is in favour of the proposal contained in the Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The Board of Trade have to consult a great many different institutions and a great many informed bodies of opinion; and, having consulted a great many of them, they then 'have to make up their mind. The people I should like to consult, to find out whether there is a strong demand on their part for a uniform measure, are those who go to public-houses in different parts of the country. I think it would upset some people's established habits if, all of a sudden, by this Act of Parliament we imposed a uniform standard which is different from the prevailing custom. Let us do one thing at a time. The main thing we are doing is to see that, if a choice in favour of one-sixth is made, the customer will be legally protected and get his one-sixth; or if it is one-quarter, that he will get his one-quarter. I do not want to elaborate the arguments further, as we did in Committee, but I should just repeat once more that, if we were to have uniformity, I should prefer the Scottish measure of one-quarter rather than one-fifth, even though one-fifth happens to be one fluid ounce.
LORD LATHAM: Leave us one liberty.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have some sympathy for the noble Earl in this matter, but I do not know whether my sympathy really outweighs the points made by my noble friend Lord Latham. When you go into some public-houses you find, at certain times of the day, considerable crowding. I think it is true that during that period there is some

289
confusion of the various measures in which spirits are supplied. I am sure that we shall increase the opportunities for this type of practice with having so many different quantities before us in an Act of Parliament. My noble friend may not wish to press this Amendment, but I wonder whether the noble Earl would, between now and the next stage, consider whether we could not at least omit one of these measures and get down to two. I think there might be some advantage in that.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I bring up one further point here? I think my noble friend is taking exactly the opposite line to the line he took when I moved an Amendment relating to beer. Because it is the practice in certain localities to use an eight-ounce glass when you want something less than half a pint, my noble friend argued that, although it is a common practice in certain areas, this made for too many types of glass. One was too near the other Therefore I withdrew my Amendment because of his argument. He said that we can have one-third of a pint or half a pint; that there was a fairly wide gap between them, but that he did not like these intermediate sizes, whatever the local custom was As I say, I appreciated his argument and I willingly withdrew my Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, might I interrupt my noble friend? I cannot speak again without your Lordships' leave, but perhaps I can interrupt my noble friend. Of course, one-third of a pint, one pint and multiples of one pint may all be sold in the same public-house on the same day. These alternative measures for whisky, rum and gin are not different measures which may be sold by the same publican on the same day. He has to choose which of them he will use.
LORD DERWENT: I thank the noble Earl very much.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I was one of those from these Benches who rather supported the views of the noble Earl when this point was discussed in Committee. I have been thinking about it since. We are all aware that a publican can, shall we say, sell whisky by the quarter of a gill, gin by the fifth of a
290
gill, and rum by the sixth of a gill, but cannot mix a particular drink up. It seems to me, in practice, that if this paragraph is left unchanged there will tend to be only one measure in a public-house. Otherwise, I think the publican will find himself in trouble. People will say: "This is a very small rum", if he serves a sixth of a gill, compared with a large whisky if he chooses to serve a quarter of a gill. I think that, whatever is in this Bill, individual publicans will themselves decide which of the three measures they will sell, and they will stick to that measure for all the spirits which are controlled under this paragraph. Therefore, it seems to me that there are good grounds for considering what my noble friend Lord Shepherd suggested, and that is that, at most, we should have two alternatives rather than three. In practice, I think, most publicans will have only one.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I wonder whether it is really necessary to keep one-sixth? I thoroughly support my noble friend Lord Dundee about one-quarter and one-fifth, but I feel that one-sixth is completely unnecessary. I cannot believe that there is anyone who, if he wished to drink at all, would require so little as one-sixth of a gill of any spirit.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: A lot of people are getting much less now.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: That, I am afraid, may be true. One-third, which is two-sixths, is so near to one-quarter and two-fifths that I feel we could well dispense with one-sixth, so that there would be fewer to bother about. We should be left with one-quarter and one-fifth, which I should have thought would be enough for any publican in any public house in the country.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Fifth Schedule (continued):
PART VII
Fresh fruits and vegetables
1. References in this Part of this Schedule to fruits or vegetables of any description are references to such fruits or vegetables either—

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

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

2. Subject to paragraph 4 of this Part of this Schedule, potatoes—
(b) shall be pre-packed only—

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

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

3.—(1) Subject to paragraph 4 of this Part of this Schedule, this paragraph applies to—
(b) produce of any one or more of the following descriptions (hereafter in this paragraph referred to as "soft fruits"), that is to say, bilberries, blackberries, blackcurrants, brambles, cherries, cranberries, gooseberries, loganberries, mulberries, raspberries, redcurrants, strawberries and white-currants;
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to deal with this Amendment and Amendments Nos. 96, 97, 100 and 106 together, since they are all interconnected. During the Committee stage it was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that a trade was developing in pre-packed mixtures of cut, sliced or diced vegetables which could be used as complete vegetable components of a stew or similar dish. Some of the hardier of your Lordships may recall that at this point the discussion of that particular Amendment was broken off at 11 o'clock on December 19, and was resumed at five minutes past three on December 20. During the intervening period I had confirmed what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, had told me, and under the Bill as drafted such pre-packs would fall within the requirements of Part XII of this Schedule, that they be marked with their net weight or measure. Since the cut or sliced articles in such pre-packs are, if anything, more likely to lose weight by evaporation than the same articles when sold whole, it was urged that the more flexible provisions of Part VII of this Schedule should apply to them, instead of the provisions of Part XII. These connected Amendments are designed to do exactly this. I hope that, in moving them, we have met the noble Lord's point. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 65. line 43, after ("to") insert ("food consisting of".)—(Lord St. Oswald.)
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, for his explanation and for the very great care with which he has redeemed his promise to go into this particular point. In my opinion, the Government has produced a vastly better, more comprehensive and more useful Amendment than the one I tabled, and I am sure, irrespective of any other decisions which may be made today, that it will be of considerable help to the growers and packers of vegetables. I should like, on their behalf, to express our sense of gratitude.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I am not going to put the others at this moment. I am putting Amendments together only where they are consecutive and relate exactly to the same point.
4.20 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in paragraph 1 (b), after "trimming" to insert "or peeling". The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the Committee stage, to which the noble Lord has referred, I moved an Amendment to insert the words "slicing or dicing". That point is now, of course, covered by the Government's Amendment. But I overlooked —and even the Government have overlooked it in their Amendment—that we should also include peeled vegetables. I therefore now desire to insert the words "or peeling", because they would not be covered by the words now chosen by the Government—namely, "cut up into pieces". I am sure that, having conceded the principle, the Government would agree that peeled vegetables should be treated in exactly the same way.
There is not yet a very extensive business in pre-packed peeled vegetables, but it is growing and there is every possibility that there will be a considerable development in the near future. This is particularly true with regard to potatoes. The Report of the Preservatives in Food Sub-Committee of the Foods Standards Committee made a recommendation that a prescribed quantity of sulphur dioxide should be permitted to be used as an anti-oxident for peeled potatoes. If this recommendation is implemented in legislation, it will remove a barrier which has hitherto existed regarding the use of

293
preservatives with potatoes. Therefore this small Amendment becomes one of some importance to the industry, and I hope that the Government will see fit to agree to it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65. line 45, after ("trimming") insert ("or peeling").—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, we see difficulties in accepting the Amendment as it stands. Part VII is essentially designed to deal with fresh fruits and vegetables; and there is a danger of anomalies, or inconsistencies, between Part VII and Part XII, which is the Part dealing with the marking of processed foods generally, if the definition of "fresh'' fruits and vegetables is widened to cover articles which have undergone a substantial transformation from their natural state. The Amendment would bring all peeled varieties of the fruits and vegetables listed in this Part within its scope. This would be the case, for instance, with a peeled orange. If the trader has gone so far as to peel an orange before sale, is it right that he should have to remember that a pre-packed whole orange which has been peeled is caught by this Part, whereas if he splits it into quarters he must remember to see how he stands under Part XII? Since the noble Lord has made his purpose plain, and there is the possibility of a trade developing in pre-packed peeled potatoes, which will be prevented from deteriorating by new processes, such as vacuum-packs or gas-filled packs, the Government are prepared to accept that this trade could be brought into Part VII without risk of anomalies. 'The wording of the Amendment goes wider than is necessary for this purpose, and if the noble Lord will agree to withdraw it now, the Government will table an appropriate one to take its place on Third Reading.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful for the noble Lord's reply and for the research that he obviously has conducted into the subject. The possibility of the marketing of peeled oranges is a suggestion which the trade has not even thought of so far. They have thought of "unzipping" bananas, but not, apparently, of peeling oranges. I agree with the comments that he made on my Amendment, and I am grateful to the Government for suggesting that
294
they will introduce their own Amendment on Third Reading. I ask leave of the House to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in paragraph 2 (b) (i), after "weight" to insert: "at the time of packing".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will find it convenient if I deal with this Amendment and Nos. 93 and 95 in one discussion. All I ask the Government is to concede the principle that the net weight of pre-packed potatoes and other vegetables should be the net weight at the time of packing. The Government have already conceded this principle with pre-packed cheeses, and in defending this decision when it was under attack from this side of the House, the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 227 (No. 25), col. 769];
"…all natural cheeses are inclined to some extent to undergo evaporation…and this leads to appreciable loss of weight."
The Government took the particular cheeses out of the Bill. The case for pre-packed vegetables is exactly the same, only more so. Nearly all vegetables consist of from 80 to 85 per cent. water. That is a far greater moisture content that cheese. 'Consequently, vegetables lose weight much more quickly. On actual test, vegetables like Brussels sprouts or spinach, or even peas, have been found to lose 8 per cent. of their weight in 48 hours. I mention that time because that is about the time between pre-packing and final sale in the retailer's shop.
Before dealing with the general case for vegetables, I should like to say a word about pre-packed potatoes. I acknowledge that the Government Amendment with regard to vegetables cut up in pieces, which will be accepted shortly, I hope, will be a considerable help particularly with regard to potatoes. Another considerable help will be the concession which has just been promised in respect of peeled vegetables. However, alone among vegetables, potatoes must under existing legislation be marked with a statement of net weight, and this has already led to considerable difficulties for retailers, because potatoes

295
are packed in a damp state after washing and lose a considerable amount of weight in drying out.
It is already customary to pack 5 per cent. over-weight, but this is not sufficient unless they are sold within 48 hours after packing, and I must emphasise that once the pack leaves his hands the packer has no control whatever over the time when his pack is sold or over the conditions, particularly the temperature, under which it is kept. So it is quite impossible to pack to a weight which will ensure that the actual weight when sold is the weight marked on the pack. Under the Bill as it now stands, the retailer will have no defence whatever under Clause 27 because he knows that although the amount of goods are still there—say 15 sprouts in a container—the weight must be different because it is subject to evaporation. The only thing he can do to avoid prosecution, if this Bill goes through unamended, is to soak the packs in water. That may satisfy the law, but it does not satisfy the honest trader and certainly does not satisfy the consumer.
The strongest argument for this Amendment is that, if it is not accepted, the Bill will have the most serious effect on the struggling horticultural industry. This industry is in a sick and sorry state and its one present hope lies in the development of pre-packaging. In 1955, fewer than one million pre-packs of vegetables were sold; last year, there were 320 million—a three hundredfold increase in five years. This increase has taken place not only because housewives like to buy clean, graded produce, free from waste, but also because these handy packages are ideal for self-service stores. As it stands, the Bill does not present much difficulty in traditional shops, where there are counter hands to weigh goods on scales and sell them across the counter, but self-service stores want packages in a fitment with known weight. If, through this Bill, they are forced constantly to check-weigh or, even worse, to soak unsold packs overnight, it will not be worth the trouble to them and they will drop the line altogether. This would be a disaster for the growers and housewives would lose a service which they have come to appreciate.
I submit that it is useless for the Government to argue that in, except in the case of potatoes, the Bill does not require the packer to mark the vegetables with a declaration of weight. The stores have not the staff or the time to weigh things, and they will therefore demand from the packers a weight marking on the package, or at least a warranty, which will amount to the same thing. I have no hesitation in saying that, as the Bill now stands, it is bound to mean increased costs and loss of service to the housewife, loss of sales to the grower and undeserved headaches to the retailers. The only people to escape will be those who add the water which nature has removed. We are dealing here with living things which cannot be packed in airtight containers.
I am astonished that there has been no demur about this Bill from the tobacco industry. Although they pack their products in tins which are almost hermetically sealed, or in heavy tinfoil (of course, it is impossible to use that kind of package for vegetables), I should have thought that they would find themselves in considerable difficulty. It will no longer be acceptable to have the kind of marking that they now have on many of their packages, "Net weight subject to evaporation", for, no kind of marking of that sort is permissible under the Bill as at present.
The Government have adumbrated and conceded the principle in respect of cheeses, which are taken out of the Bill, but, so far, they have declined to concede it in connection with vegetables. I would say that it is utterly wrong for the Government, having, as I think quite rightly, conceded this principle in the case of cheese, to inflict this grievous injury on vegetable growers. I ask the Government to accept this Amendment, so that inspection can take place at the packing stations and hard working horticulturists can continue to develop the public service they are providing. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 9, after ("weight") insert ("at the time of packing").—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that this is a matter of principle in the Bill and upon that we are agreed. As we see it, his amendment strikes at the very roots of the principle of weight marking; namely, that

297
when anyone consults a statement of quantity on a pre-packed article, he should be able to be sure that, except for a loss of weight which could not reasonably be anticipated by the packer, the goods are not less than the quantity stated. The noble Lord and some of his friends have suggested that, where an article is subject to unpredictable loss of weight by evaporation, a "weight when packed" marking is all that the packer can give with certainty; and indeed, that this is all the information that the consumer needs, since the loss of weight subsequent to packing is merely due to loss of moisture, which is hardly of importance to him. I am sorry, but we do not accept these arguments.
In our view, it is the packer, not the consumer, who should be expected to assess any loss of weight during the normal period of time taken in distribution and spent on the shelves of the shop. Noble Lords have expressed alarm about sale by gross weight when what is at issue is a very small percentage. In the case quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, at the Committee stage, a bag of 5 lb. of pre-packed potatoes had apparently lost some 9 oz., on the assumption that, in addition to the 5 oz. deficiency discovered by the noble Lord, the packer had packed, as was his custom, the 5 per cent. excess allowance to meet the requirements of the present law. If the Amendment were accepted, the packers would no longer feel any obligation to give this 5 per cent. allowance, and in the case quoted the consumer would presumably have got not 4 lb. 11 oz., but 4 lb. 7 oz.— for a bag marked "5 lb. when packed".
LORD STONHAM: The consumer would have had the same potatoes.
LORD ST. OSWALD: He would have had fewer potatoes, which I should have thought was the matter of chief importance to him.
LORD STONHAM: The package is sealed. Nothing else happens. The potatoes are still there. So the housewife would have exactly the same potatoes.
LORD ST. OSWALD: All I am saying is that in that case, since the packer would not have felt obliged to make the 5 per cent. provision, he would not have packed as many potatoes, and therefore
298
the customer would have received fewer than she did.
There are obvious advantages for the consumer in getting pre-packed cleaned potatoes; but it should not be necessary, and is not consistent with the objects of the Bill, to enable the consumer in future to be led to believe that 5 lb. of potatoes when packed in a bag is the same as 5 lb. of potatoes sold loose when, as the noble Lord showed, it would not be anything like this. Ever since 1926 the law has required pre-packed potatoes to be marked with a weight that will be true at time of sale. In the last few years millions of bags have been sold under this law; and the Government do not consider that it should be relaxed at this stage when the growth of pre-packing makes it even a more important protection for the consumer.
The noble Lord mentioned, in this respect, cheese and suggested, as understood it, that we were being inconsistent in our treatment of cheese and our treatment of vegetables. But I must draw his attention to the fact that cheese is different in that it not only loses moisture but actually throws water; that is one of its characteristics. It is, in fact, quite different in that respect from vegetables, and not simply different in degree but different in character. The noble Lord also mentioned tobacco, and I can inform him that the whole question of tobacco is now under active discussion —because the particular difficulties connected with tobacco are recognised —between my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade and the tobacco trade.
Anxiety has been expressed as to the spreading custom of opening supermarkets in towns and their difficulties in handling produce without the assistance of the noble Lord's Amendment. But I am bound to say that, even on this account, I do not think noble Lords really believe that these stores, or any other stores, should be free to pass over to the public containers marked as holding 1 lb. when, as we all agree, they are likely to be considerably below this weight at the time the public buy them. As drafted, and subject to the prescribed container allowance, the Bill will give the public—and this we consider most important—the right to know the weight of the produce at the time at which it is sold to them. This is the weight in

299
which the buyer is most interested, and the Government believe that this is the point on which to concentrate in those cases where the Bill is dealing with highly evaporable pre-packed articles which the packer cannot reasonably be required to mark in the ordinary way.
This will admittedly—and we understand the point—involve these stores in check-weighing samples of this produce, to determine at what weight the pack should be advertised when set out on the shelf. The self-service stores are, as I understand, accustomed to doing a great deal of check-weighing of other produce, and we cannot see any justification for exposing the public to a deception of the kind in the case of a produce covered by this part of the Schedule. I therefore cannot ask the House to accept this Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, in this Amendment we have struck out into very deep waters indeed, because we are not dealing only with all the vegetables that are specifically mentioned, for the principle applies to all manner of goods of which the weight tends to diminish between packing and ultimate consumption. For the life of me, I cannot see the difference between potatoes and tobacco in that respect, or even of knitting wool, about which we have an Amendment down. If the Government have taken the stand that they insist upon the consumer knowing the weight at the time of sale, the only practicable defence open to the packer is to rely on the defence in Clause 27, that he can prove that the loss in weight
" was attributable wholly to factors for which reasonable allowance was made in stating the quantity of the goods on the container or document."
I understand that the knitting wool trade would regard that as a reasonable and proper defence.
My noble friend has suggested that re-weighing will be necessary. In fact, the larger self-service stores do re-weigh. But I should have thought that it would be a perfectly fair defence for the packer or the seller to maintain that these goods weighed, say, a pound when they were packed, that the normal wastage for the normal period of selling time was one ounce, and that the ounce margin had been included. If the Government con-
300
sider that that is not a reasonable defence, and that the packer who has to cope with goods which are perhaps kept longer than the normal time will still be responsible for the weight, then, of course, there is nothing for it but this appallingly expensive and elaborate system of re-weighing. As I said, I have reason to believe that, in the case of knitting wools, at any rate, the spinners consider that Clause 27 provides them with a sufficient defence in a commodity which is at any rate comparable in hygroscopicity to potatoes and the like, though I am not sure whether tobacco manufacturers would agree that it is comparable with their product. I should like my noble friend— or the noble Earl perhaps—to dilate a little more fully on the defence and how it reacts to the charge of a lower weight than that marked on the packet.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke? It is the case that Sir Lionel Heald gave a considered opinion with regard to this possible defence. It was his opinion, together with that of another eminent Queen's Counsel who worked with him, that Clause 27 would not give a defence under existing conditions. It may well be that the noble Earl has read that opinion of Sir Lionel Heald. As I see it, and as I mentioned in my remarks, since the retailer knows that these vegetables must lose weight rapidly, a defence will not be available, because there is no reasonable precaution that he could take to prevent it. In other words, the loss of weight is unpreventable.
The noble Lord said that this was a question of principle, and the principle on which the Government insisted was that the goods, when sold to the housewife, should not be less in weight than the quantity stated. I should have thought that principle would have been completely fulfilled if the package was marked with the words, "Net weight at the time of packing", because that is the quantity stated and there is no departure from it whatsoever. So the principle would be completely fulfilled if this Amendment were accepted. The noble Lord has told us—and I am very glad to hear this—that discussions are going on beween the tobacco trade and his right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade. I hope they will be

301
successful from the point of view of the tobacco trade. But if they are successful, in so far as my limited knowledge goes it can only be through the acceptance of a marking, "Net weight at the time of packing", or "Net weight, subject to evaporation." No other agree-merit could be regarded by the tobacco trade as successful.
If such an agreement is reached, as I hope it will be, by the right honourable gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and the tobacco industry, it will only be for precisely the reasons which I have been advocating for this Amendment, except, of course, that the weight loss in tobacco, because it is possible to pack it differently, must be quite small compared with the weight loss in vegetables. That would only reinforce what I hale been saying: that it will be a gross and grave injustice if two industries having like problems are treated differently. It would lead to the view that perhaps the tobacco industry is more powerful than that of horticulture. When a principle is adumbrated and conceded, I think it should be adhered to and implemented in legislation. I hope that the noble Lord will even yet say that he will look at these points again between now and Third Reading. to see whether it cannot be conceded. If not, I hope that my noble friends. and perhaps others of your Lordships' House, will agree to support this Amendment in the Division Lobby.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: My Lords, this is not, I think, the time when the case for the tobacco industry can properly, in accordance with the Rules of your Lordships' House, be developed, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, for saying what he did about the discussions that are going on. I rise to make only one paint in reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said, namely, to underline the point that not only is there the fact of time which was to be considered—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, will agree with this—but there are also other factors, such as the effect of climate and the conditions under which the pre-packed goods are stored. These are factors which apply to a great variety of goods and not only tobacco. I am speaking not only on the tobacco theme, but in support of the general principle.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I must say that with regard to vegetables I have a certain amount of sympathy for the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I do not quite understand the Government's principle in respect of pre-packed vegetables. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, that this places the packer in rather a difficult position, and I heartily agree that the consumer wants to be protected as much as he can. With regard to vegetables, at least—and here I have particularly in mind potatoes arid carrots, which one finds nowadays packed in cellophane bags with ventilation holes —I should have thought the consumer was protected if the weight was indicated and there was a marking to the effect that it was that weight when it was packed. Another point is that the date could be marked, and then I think there would be no question of misleading the consumer in any way.
I must say, especially with regard to pre-packed vegetables, that I have a great deal of sympathy with Lord. Stonham's Amendment and I hope the Government will look at the question again and possibly themselves put down some form of Amendment. I know the present principle has been in practice since 1926, but I feel there may be a number of your Lordships who may not agree with that principle. The important point is that the consumer should be protected. There is another important point that one type of industry should not be put to great hardship and difficulties, provided the consumer is protected. That is why I sincerely hope the Government will look at this question again, as the noble Lord asks.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
4.52 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in paragraph 3 (1), to leave out sub-paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 94 which, briefly, proposes to delete soft fruit from the provisions of the Bill. On Committee stage I moved a similar Amendment, and I acknowledge that since then the Government have amended a subsection of Clause 27 to ensure that the inspectors must lest a reasonable sample of packages; and this certainly eases the position with regard to punnets of soft fruit. It is also true that, under

303
the present provisions of the Bill, the retailer can sell soft fruits by gross weight including the weight of the punnet, and on the previous occasion I suggested that because the punnets absorbed moisture their weight might be taken beyond the permitted limits of the Schedule. Having made further inquiries on this point, I am satisfied that the weight allowances of this particular Part of the Schedule are sufficient to remove that danger almost entirely.
We now come to the point where the vendor of soft fruits can sell by gross weight in an unmarked punnet, and his difficulties are not quite as great as they were when we discussed this Bill in Committee. Nevertheless, it is still my view and the view of the National Farmers' Union that soft fruits should be excluded from the Bill. The marketing of soft fruits, which are highly perishable and easily damaged by too much handling, has been greatly improved over the last few years, in that most growers now pack their fruits in punnets rather than in bulk. As a result, we are all now able to buy our soft fruits in much better condition. It would be a retrograde step if, by reason of this Bill, the growers had to revert to marketing in bulk; indeed, it would be contrary to the Government's policy of encouraging the horticulture industry as exemplified in the Horticulture Act of last year.
The soft fruit season is a very short one and a very busy one. The growers are all hard pressed to find enough labour for harvesting the crops. In most cases the fruit is put into punnets in the fields. It is not weighed; there are no facilities for weighing in most of the fields. These punnets are packed into their containers and sent to markets. The weight content may easily alter between the different punnets—for various reasons: not merely evaporation, but loss of weight through some berries jumping out of one punnet into another, mould getting on some berries and having to be removed, or by losses through pilfering. It is quite impossible for the salesman to weigh possibly hundreds of thousands of packages in the two or three hours during which all this soft fruit has to be sold early in the morning in the market. For those reasons, despite the two improvements which I have acknowledged gratefully. it seems to me, and certainly
304
it is my duty to say that the National Farmers' Union strongly feel, that the Bill still places onerous and impracticable obligations on the growers of soft fruits and will do a considerable amount of harm to the industry. I am sure the Government do not want this to happen, and I hope that they will remedy their mistake by accepting this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 18, leave out sub-paragraph (b). —(Lord Stonham.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, this Amendment, which, as he has reminded us, was moved in Committee by the same noble Lord, Lord Stonham, would remove all the fresh soft fruits listed in sub-paragraph (1) (b) of paragraph 3 of Part VII of this Schedule from the requirement that, upon retail sale, their net or gross weight must be made known to the buyer. In so doing, it would mean that loose sales of these fruits would not have to be on a weight basis; and, although most loose sales are, in practice, by weight, it would enable the retailer to sell them by dry measure, if he so wished. I do not imagine the noble Lord would regard that as desirable from the consumers' point of view.
However, the noble Lord's Amendment is intended to be related to the sales of these fruits when pre-packed-that is, when packed in the traditional punnets or baskets of which he has spoken. This touches upon one of the most difficult questions with which this Bill attempts to deal. At the moment the public are open to serious fraud in this trade. The punnets are not completely enclosed, since the fruit needs air to preserve its quality, and since traders along the line of distribution may justifiably take out the odd fruit which is going bad so as to preserve 'the quality of the rest. This does not, however, prevent anyone else who wishes to help himself to a strawberry or two before the punnet reaches the shop. On top of this, the fruits themselves are liable to considerable loss of weight by evaporation during distribution. Thus, when these goods are offered for sale, as they often are, as ½1b. or 11b. punnets the public have no assurance whatsoever as to the amount of fruit contained in them.
The Government accept that it would not be equitable to require the packer

305
to mark these punnets with the weight of their contents, and with all the foregoing considerations in mind we have come to the conclusion that the only solution which is fair to the public and the growers alike is the one which is prescribed in Part VII—namely, that the buyer shall be entitled to know from the retailer the gross weight of the fruit and the punnet and will have an assurance that the weight of the punnet itself shall not exceed a certain limit. They are aware that the growers have expressed concern that these provisions will place them in jeopardy of prosecution should some accident while the punnets were on the way to the shops reduce the amount of fruit in the individual punnet, and so lead to the weight of the container exceeding the allowance which would be appropriate to that lesser weight of fruit.
I was also aware of the difficulty expressed by the noble Lord, under which the present type of punnet is liable to, and in fact normally does, absorb some of the moisture, and thus may in that alter its weight in proportion to the fruit inside. I would, however, emphasise the safeguards to which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham has already drawn attention—that is to say, the wide range of defences and safeguards to traders set out in Clauses 26 to 29. These are designed precisely to prevent the trader from being prosecuted for accidental occurrences, or for occurrences which he could not reasonably foresee, and to ensure that, wherever possible, a reasonable sample of goods is taken into account when the inspector carries out his test weighing. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham has recalled, these safeguards have been strengthened by Government Amendments to Clause 27.
As we are still on the same subject, I should like to point out to my noble friends behind me and opposite that in fact Sir Lionel Heald's opinion, which has been referred to, was not on the clause as at present drafted. I would also say, on the challenge as to what is the difference between vegetables and tobacco and vegetables and wool that the fact is that the inquiry into tobacco will of course reveal what the differences are; and, as to the differences in wool, I shall attempt to describe them to the House later this evening. We know that many
306
trades have quite appreciable practical difficulties to overcome in complying with the Bill's requirements, which are designed to protect the consumer against the rare fraudulent or careless trader. Nevertheless, the Government see no reason why the growers of soft fruit should not be able to play their part in this, when they, like other traders, will enjoy the full defences and safeguards incorporated in the Bill. I cannot recommend the House to accept this Amendment.
On Question. Amendment negatived.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, this Amendment has already been dealt with in connection with Amendment No. 91. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 2, at end insert—
("3A.—(1) Where fruits or vegetables of any description specified in paragraph 2 or 3 of this Part of this Schedule have been cut up into pieces, then, subject to paragraph 4 of this Part of this Schedule, this paragraph shall apply to any food consisting of, or including, any of those pieces which have not been subjected to any further process.
(2) On a sale by retail of any goods to which this paragraph applies which are not pre-packed in a container marked with an indication of quantity by net weight the quantity of the goods sold, being—

(a) quantity by net weight; or

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

shall be made known to the buyer at or before delivery of the goods to him.
(3) Goods to which this paragraph applies shall be pre-packed in a container which exceeds the appropriate permitted weight aforesaid only if the container is marked with an indication of quantity by net weight.")— (Lord St. Oswald.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 3, at end insert ("paragraph 2 or 3 of ").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, this Amendment and No. 99 refer to the same point. They relate to Part VI of the Fifth Schedule to the Bill which specifies requirements with regard to fresh fruits

307
and vegetables. The exemptions from these requirements are set out in the various sub-paragraphs of paragraph 4, of which sub-paragraph (c) is relevant to these Amendments. When this Part of the Fifth Schedule was being considered in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, moved to substitute "eight" articles for "six" and, although my noble friend and I at that time were not prepared to accept the Amendment, I promised to give the matter further consideration. Subsequently, the noble Lord arranged a most impressive display in the Royal Gallery which has completely convinced us. I am therefore happy to carry out the promise I made at that time to give the matter further consideration. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line I1, leave out ("six") and insert ("eight ").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 14, leave out from beginning to ("articles") and insert ("all the").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, this, too, is consequential upon other Amendments.
Amendment moved—
>Page 67, line 16, at end insert ("and there shall be exempted from all requirements of this Part of this Schedule").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Fifth Schedule (continued):
PART VIII
Miscellaneous foods to be sold by or marked with net weight and to be pre-packed only in fixed quantities.
5.7 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in paragraph 1 (a), to omit "in flake form, other than cereal biscuit breakfast foods." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this Amendment merely to obtain an undertaking from the Gov-
308
ernment. The Bill, as it stands, means that cereal breakfast foods in flake form, other than cereal biscuit foods, must be sold and marked by net weight. The Bill as it stands includes many wide varieties of cereal breakfast foods. I understood. and I accept, the reasons why the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, resisted the Amendment on Committee stage; but I am sure he will appreciate that it may put other manufacturers of cereal breakfast foods to some advantage over the manufacturers of flake breakfast foods, in that they will be able to prepare and put on display boxes, possibly of giant sizes as compared with those for flake foods. The undertaking I would ask of the Government is that the weight shall be clearly stated and that producers of these other types of cereals shall be precluded from a form of presentation which will give them an advantage in regard to sale over the manufacturer who is at the present moment being forced to distribute his goods under a specific net weight. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
>Page 67, line 46, leave out from ("foods") to end of line 47.—(Lord Shepherd.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the noble Lord has been good enough to say that in moving this Amendment he wishes me only to clarify the position as between flake foods and other kinds of food. I think the noble Lord appreciates the general argument which I used before: that we do not want to require any kind of article, if it is pre-packed, to be sold by specified quantity, except for strong and special reasons, because we think it would have the effect of sending up the price of packing. The reason why cereal breakfast foods in flake form are included in Part VIII is that it has always been the practice to make boxes of a size that will contain specified weights for these foods in flake form. But, of course, when it comes to other kinds of foods of a different density it is not desirable to have them sold by specified quantity, because that would mean making different sizes of containers which would be uneconomical.
I can assure the noble Lord that under the Bill as it stands breakfast foods of this kind, except biscuits, have to be marked with the net weight. That is

309
provided for in this Schedule under Part XII, paragraph 2 of which says:
"Subject to paragraph 3 of this Part of this Schedule, goods to which this Part of this Schedule applies, shall be pre-packed only if the container is marked with an indication of quantity either by net weight or by capacity measurement."
That applies to breakfast foods, except cereal biscuit breakfast foods, which are included in Part XI—that is to say, miscellaneous foods to be marked when pre-packed with quantity by number and not by weight.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Earl is not quite with me. He may remember that when I spoke on deceptive containers (I will not bring deceptive containers in here) I drew attention to the power of visual display. We are taking away from the manufacturers of flake breakfast foods some liberty, some ability to be flexible, in the way they present their goods on a counter, but we are leaving the other people to produce packs in any way they wish. All I want to know from the Government is that these provisions will not make it possible for the other manufacturers of cereal to use their ability, their flexibility, as an advantage against the manufacturer who, under this Bill, is limited.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not quite follow the noble Lord's point. I think I can reassure him on that, too, because the requirement to pre-pack flakes here in specified weights does not preclude the packer from using whatever kind of container he wishes. All it governs is the amounts inside the package; and they, of course, have to be marked in net weights.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Fifth Schedule (continued):
PART X
Miscellaneous foods to be sold by or marked with net weight or gross weight
2. Goods to which this Part of this Schedule applies—
(b) shall be pre-packed only if the container is marked with an indication of quantity, being quantity by net weight or, if the container does not exceed the appropriate permitted weight aforesaid, quantity either by net weight or by gross weight:
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, this Amendment has for its purpose the laying down of a requirement that the goods controlled by this Part of the Fifth Schedule shall be pre-packed only in simple and specified quantities. That is at the present time required in respect of many articles by paragraph 4 of the First Schedule of the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926. This requirement is not provided for in this Part of the Schedule. Pre-packing in prescribed quantities of articles for common consumption has always been regarded as a real safeguard to the purchaser, and the omission of this safeguard in the Bill is regarded as a serious and retrograde step. I hope that the noble Earl has had an opportunity of considering this matter since the Committee stage, and that he may be able to offer some encouragement of a protective character to the consumer. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69. line 39, leave out from ("only") to end of line 43, and insert—

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

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

being in each case quantity by net weight or, if the container does not exceed the appropriate permitted weight aforesaid, quantity either by net weight or by gross weight: ")—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment, which I think was fairly fully discussed in. Committee, would be to require the groceries and provisions listed in Part X of the Schedule to be pre-packed in specified quantities only. As the noble Lord said, some of the commodities contained in this Schedule have been required to be pre-packed in specified quantities under the 1926 Act, but only some of them.
LORD LATHAM: And even those will now become exempt, will they not?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, that is the position. The Amendment, which would apply to all the articles in the Schedule, would go a great deal further than the 1926 Act. This Bill, for reasons of which I shall remind the noble Lord and which I stated in Committee, does not go so far as the 1926 Act. It

311
does not require certain commodities to be sold in specified quantities only which are required to be so sold by the 1926 Act. As I have put to your Lordships on many occasions during our discussions on this Bill, we believe that the requirement to pre-pack in specified quantities is one which should be applied very sparingly indeed and only when there are strong practical reasons for it from the point of view of consumer protection. I have also previously, on more than one occasion, I think, suggested to your Lordships that the position has changed a great deal since 1926 when the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act was passed.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, would the noble Earl say whether he has had any evidence that the application of the 1926 Act has been unfair and unjust to retailers?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords. it is not a question of being unfair and unjust, but rather of adapting yourself to modern conditions of commerce in the retail trade. One important factor in securing economies in the cost of production is freedom to use standardised containers which can all pass through the same packing machine without adjustment for a variety of goods. But as most goods will tend to differ from each other in density, any widespread application of the requirement to sell in specified quantities, to pre-pack in standard weights, would either destroy the economic advantages of standard-sized containers, which means that the public would ultimately have to pay more, or else would lead to some containers being only half full, which is not very satisfactory and would probably arouse the public's suspicion.
Although the Hodgson Committee recommended that rather more goods should be pre-packed in specified weights than the Bill does in fact require, they drew special attention to the economies which can be achieved by the standardisation of container sizes, and they stressed that the Board of Trade ought to keep this aspect in mind in considering any further extension of this particular requirement. That was ten years ago, and there have been great advances in pre-packing since then.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, if I may say so with respect, they did not
312
suggest that the articles already under the 1926 Act should be released from the obligation.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, no; but they did draw special attention to the economies which can be achieved by standardisation of container sizes—economies which I would suggest are very much to the advantage of the consumer.
LORD LATHAM: That is understood.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Foods are coming more and more to be packed in cardboard cartons rather than in the old blue-paper bags; and the economic standardisation of the sizes of these cartons, which can be used for a variety of these goods with different densities, will, in our view, be prevented if the 1926 requirement to pack in specified weights is not relaxed.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Fifth Schedule (continued):
PART XI
Miscellaneous foods to be marked when pre-packed with quantity by number
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUNDEEIs this not supplementary to No. 101?
LORD SHEPHERD: I want to raise one other point, if I may. The Bill as it now stands requires packets of cereal biscuit breakfast foods when sold to be marked with the quantity or number. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, may remember that on the Committee stage I raised the question of what was the definition of "biscuit breakfast foods". I wondered whether it would include such things as Energen rolls, which some of us occasionally eat from time to time to reduce our weight. These are to-day being sold in sealed containers, in many cases, without any weight or even number. I do not know whether it is intended that that article, and others, such as Ryvita and McVita, shall be regarded as "cereal breakfast foods". I am really moving this Amendment to know whether the noble Earl can help us in this matter.
Amendment moved—
Page 70. leave out line 6.—(Lord Shepherd.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I was under the impression that I had written the noble Lord about this, but if I have not, I will certainly repair the omission. I should have thought that Ryvita would not have been classed as a breakfast food, though I do not know whether it is or not, because it is used at all kinds of meals.
LORD SHEPHERD: It could be.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am glad to have confirmation that it is not. But if the noble Lord wants detailed information on all these different kinds of food, perhaps he will allow me to get it for him and supply it.
LORD SHEPHERD: If, in principle, the noble Earl thinks we could include all these types of cereal foods, I wonder whether, on Third Reading, he would consider the removal of the word "breakfast" from the paragraph, so that it would then read, "cereal biscuit foods". Then it might include all these items, which I personally think should be included in this Bill.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes. I do not know whether that would he a good thing or not, but I will certainly consider it before Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.22 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Part XI of the Fifth Schedule to the Bill requires some miscellaneous foodstuffs, when pre-packed, to be marked with an indication of quantity by number. One of the foodstuffs listed is shell-eggs, and when this Part was being considered by the House in Committee on December 20 the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, moved an Amendment designed to give the same advantages to packages of pre-packed shell-eggs not exceeding six in number which the Bill at present gives to some pre-packed fruits and vegetables. We indicated that we were prepared to accept the Amendment in principle, but pointed out that, as drafted, although containers holding fewer than seven eggs would be exempt from this Part of the Schedule they might be caught by Part XII, which would mean that they would have to be marked with the net weight or measure of their contents. The noble Lord withdrew his Amendment on being assured
314
that the Government would table another at a later stage which would guard against this possibility but at the same time carry out his intention. This Amendment fulfils that promise. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 15, after (" paragraph ") insert—

("(a) shell eggs pre-packed in a quantity of not more than six, if the container is such that all the eggs can be clearly seen by a prospective purchaser;

(b)").—(Lord St. Oswald.)

Fifth Schedule (continued):
PART XII
Other pre-packed foods
LORD ST. OSWALD: This is consequential on a previous Amendment moved by myself. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 46, at end insert ("or, in the case of fruits, vegetables or coconuts in such a state which have been cut up, any pieces thereof which have not been subjected to any further process; ").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
5.24 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved in paragraph (11) (a) to leave out "three" [ounces] and insert "one". The noble Lord said: This Amendment is of much more importance than its brevity would indicate. It is important as departing from a practice which has been followed for a long time, and it is even more important because it affects children. There would seem to us to be no justification for exempting, under the limit of 3 oz. as is proposed in the Bill, sweets and other articles. If this exemption is permitted, it will affect small bars or packs of chocolate or sweets for which there is a considerable sale; and, in that connection, I may say that I have been informed that one manufacturer alone distributes 2 million packets of chocolate each week and that there are 200,000 points of distribution in Great Britain. No protection would be given to the purchasers if the weight of the article were below 3 oz.
Now it is the case, as I mentioned on Committee stage, that certain chocolate manufacturers have in recent years arbitrarily varied the sizes of small popular packs, as they are called; and I am

315
informed, also, that at least one was convicted of misrepresentation. With modern manufacturing machinery, the weight of such articles can easily be determined with uniform accuracy to very small limits, and it is the case that that can be done more precisely than is the case with very many of the other articles to which the Schedule of this Bill applies. I hope that the Government will realise what a wide field for abuse and, it may be, deliberate misrepresentation—indeed, dishonesty—this exemption will offer, and that they will have regard to the interests of children as well as those of other purchasers of these small packs of sweets and chocolate, and will offer some hope that this Amendment will be dealt with satisfactorily on Third Reading. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 12, leave out ("thre ") and insert ("one ').—(Lord Latham.)
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord who has just spoken has quite unnecessary suspicions. It is vitally important that the size of sweets in bars should be able to be varied to suit the cost of manufacture at the time. That is vital from the point of view of the very large quantities sold in vending machines. It must be possible for the 6d. bar to be changed in size according to the amount of chocolate obtainable for that price at the time. From the point of view of the general public, it is much more convenient to have a constant price for a standard article—say, 6d. for a bar of chocolate—and to get a variable weight than it is to have a variable price and a constant weight. I can assure the noble Lord that his suspicions are absolutely unjustified. Any changes there are in the weight of an article are made purely according to cocoa market fluctuations, and if the noble Lord follows the commodity market at all closely he will know that the cocoa market is a most volatile one.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The exemption limit for articles weighing less than 3 oz. is primarily designed to cover the ordinary 6d. bar of chocolate and similar articles of chocolate and sugar confectionery mentioned a moment ago by my noble friend Lord Hawke. These are normally made to weigh about 2 oz., but the manufacturers have long adopted the
316
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 their 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 mean that the small boy, or hundreds of small boys—in fact, in view of the evidence put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, I might say thousands of small boys—would find that their Saturday 6d. would no longer be sufficient to buy their favourite chocolate bar because the price had temporarily gone up to 6½d.
It would also, as my noble friend has remarked. make the 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; and a marking requirement would, on the whole, tend to work against, rather than work for, the consumers' interest in this field.
On the last occasion I put forward this argument the noble Lord, Lord Latham, cast some doubt on my statement that the weight of chocolate is ever put up: and, being naturally unwilling to suppose that the noble Lord was being entirely cynical, I looked into it and confirmed that not only the weight of chocolate but also the weights of nuts and fruit are put up as the market in these commodities may move.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, it is also the case, of course, that the cocoa beans go down in price.
LORD ST. OSWALD: That is precisely when the weight of chocolate goes up. I must make the point that the one fraudulent case that the noble Lord has been able to discover must have been the case of a single fraudulent merchant and not of the producer; and against that sort of thing, I do not think any legislation can work. We consider that this is a convenience for customer and manufacturer alike, and that it does positively no harm to anyone.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Sixth Schedule [Sand and Other Ballast]:
PART I
General provisions
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I accepted in principle an Amendment in Committee moved by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, in regard to broken slag chippings. He kindly withdrew his Amendment in order that redrafting might be considered, as it has been. We feel that specific reference to broken slag and slag chippings would be useful, and we have accordingly tabled the present Amendment. The noble Lord will see that sub-paragraph (c) (ii), as amended, would cover both tarred broken slag and slag chippings, as well as the untarred articles. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 24, after ("a") insert ("broken slag, slag chippings,").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
5.33 p.m.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved, in paragraph 1 (c) after "limestone chippings" to insert:
"other than limestone chippings sold or carried for reward with a view to their use in manufacturing work, or for incorporation in goods of a different description".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships can see, the provisions of the Sixth Schedule regulate the sale and carriage of sand and ballast, including limestone chippings. The general effect of these provisions is that the commodities mentioned in paragraph I may be sold or carried for reward only by net weight or by volume and are fully subject to the short-weight provisions of/ Clause 25 of the Bill.
I believe the primary purpose of the Sixth Schedule is to protect the building and civil engineering industries against the giving of short-weight, and the need for this protection is not in dispute. Paragraph 1 of the Schedule is so drafted, however, that it applies even where the commodities in question are supplied for other than building and civil engineering purposes. In the case of one of these commodities—namely, limestone chippings—this may work hardship when the product supplied to the manufacturing industry is for use in the manufacture of other products. In those circum-
318
stances, there is no need for the same protection against the giving of short-weight, because if short-weight is given the necessary adjustments are made through normal commercial channels.
This practice is acceptable both to buyers and to sellers in the manufacturing industry, and therefore I suggest that to impose statutory requirements for the protection of industry or the general consumer, when they are not needed, would hamper the supplier by forcing him to take unnecessary and elaborate precautions, which would result in the slowing clown of despatch and might well lead to an increase in costs. Limestone chip-pings, when supplied for use in the manufacture of other products, properly come within the exemption of the manufacturing industry contained in Clause 25 (7) of the Bill, and the purpose of the Amendment is to take limestone chip-pings out of the Sixth Schedule and bring them within the scope of the exemption of limestone chippings other than those supplied to the manufacturing industry for the manufacture of other products. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72. line 24, after ("limestone chip-pings") insert the said new words.—-(Lord Jessel.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not think I can add anything to the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, has just given in support of this Amendment. The Government accept the view expressed by my noble friend that there should be an exemption in this Schedule for limestone chippings when supplied for use in manufacture—for instance, in the chemical industry. I am advised that the wording of this Amendment might with advantage be revised, and if the noble Lord will withdraw it now we will table a suitable Amendment when the Bill reaches another place.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for his reply. Of course I have pleasure in withdrawing my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Seventh Schedule [Solid Fuel]:
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, this and the next two Amendments, Nos. 112B and 112C could, with advantage, think, be discussed together with

319
Amendment No. 119A, at page 82, because they all relate to the difficult problem of wood fuel—firewood—which we have considered on more than one occasion in Committee, and upon which Amendments have been put down by my noble friend Lord Hawke, and others. Your Lordships will remember that, in Committee, I said that the Government felt that the whole matter ought to be considered and that we would do our best to draft a suitable provision before the Report stage, which I think your Lordships will regard as more satisfactory than leaving it for another place to deal with.
What the Government have decided to propose is that wood fuel in quantities of 14 lb. and over, but not exceeding half a ton, which is not made up in a container will have to be sold by net weight only. That is for the protection of the consumer. Where, in the case of a retail sale, wood fuel is made up in containers, the net weight will have to be made known to the buyer at or before delivery of the fuel to him. But, my Lords, in order to meet the difficulties which have been so convincingly expressed by some of your Lordships, that these provisions would make impossible the practice of selling wood direct from the forest as firewood, we feel that the problem can be solved only by making the application of these provisions dependent upon the decision of local authorities. Although, as your Lordships know, one object of this Bill is to secure greater uniformity, there are some cases where it seems inevitable that we must allow exceptions to that rule; and I think that this is very decidedly one of them.
Therefore, we propose that the provisions in regard to wood fuel shall not come into force unless the local weights and measures authority decide that it would he suitable for their area. If a local authority decide that it is suitable—it may be an urban area where there is a lot of retail selling of bundles of firewood where the consumers need protection—they may make a by-law to bring in the provisions of the Bill, and if, in the opinion of the local authority, owing to subsequent changes in circumstances, it is no longer advantageous to have this part of the Bill applied, then they may rescind the by-law or alter the area to
320
which it applies. They cannot alter the terms of the Bill when it becomes an Act but they can alter the district in which it would have effect.
It seems to me that the proposal which is given effect to by these four Amendments is the most satisfactory solution to a very difficult problem, because we recognise both sides of it. On the one hand, there are some areas where the consumers require protection and, on the other hand, there are areas where the sales of firewood would be made impossible if the provisions of the Bill were to be applied universally. For example, if wood taken from a wood for marketing in a village ten miles in one direction had to be taken perhaps 30 miles in another direction to be weighed on a weighing machine, it would be quite impossible to carry on trade. I think that your Lordships will agree that this solution is the most sensible one that could have been devised.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for the great thought he has given to this Amendment. I am glad that we have convinced Her Majesty's Government that the Bill as drafted would not do. I still believe that the proper thing to do would be to exclude wood fuel from the Bill altogether, but I recognise that half a loaf is better than no bread. I do not know if the various bodies who represent those who grow and sell timber have had time to examine the ingenious method which my noble friend has used to modify the original proposals, and therefore I do not know whether it satisfies them. I regard it as half a loaf, but in this world one often settles for half a loaf. The buck is passed to the local authorities and they are nearer to the heart of the problem than Whitehall is likely to be.
One question arises. If wood fuel is taken out of the Seventh Schedule, where it had to be sold in multiples of certain weights—a ridiculous provision—and a local authority revokes the net weight clause, then presumably it will be sold by the normal weights, in tons and hundredweight. But a great deal of wood fuel is sold by different measurements: standards are sometimes used; cords are commonly used, and we also have the mysterious measure known as a hoppus foot. I do not believe that these appear in the Schedule dealing

321
with legal measurement. I wonder whether it would be legal to sell wood fuel by the cord or half-cord as the Bill stands as now amended.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: My Lords, before the noble Earl in charge of the Bill replies, I should like to echo the sentiments of my noble friend Lord Hawke. I believe that some of the organisations concerned are certainly much more satisfied than they were over this question of wood fuel, and I agree with my noble friend that the Government have gone at least half way to meet us. I know that my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry would have liked to be here but he was unfortunately prevented from doing so. May I support my noble friend Lord Hawke in this question about standards and cords? I am one of those who sell firewood by the cord, and I should like to know whether or not that is included. The noble Earl may remember, when I asked about hoppus feet, that he said that the question was being looked into, and I wonder whether standards and cords are in the same category.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, could the noble Earl tell me when wood becomes wood fuel—when cut into logs or when in long lengths? In the past, when a tree has been blown down, it has been a common thing to sell full branches below a certain diameter.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, if I may speak again, briefly, by leave of the House, I think that wood fuel includes all wood sold for the purpose of being burned by the purchaser. With regard to the measurements mentioned by my noble friends Lord Hawke and Lord Buckinghamshire, these are being considered in consultation with the trade in connection with Clause 10 of the Bill, which deals with units of weights and measures lawful for use for trade.
THE EARL. OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 8, leave out ("and wood fuel"). —(The Earl of Dundee.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, leave out lines 18 to 20.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, in paragraph 2, after sub-paragraph (a) to insert:
" (b) so much of this paragraph as requires solid fuel to be sold only in particular quantities shall not apply where the sale is of the whole load of a vehicle or ship so far as that load consists of solid fuel;
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is not here, but I think that in Committee, although the Amendment relating to this one was on the Marshalled List in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Latham, it was the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who moved it in his place. He 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".)
The noble Lord said that it was unnecessary and inconvenient for institutions such as schools and hospitals to buy whole lorry-loads of solid fuel on the basis of weight as determined at a weighbridge. In my reply, I drew attention to the provisions of paragraph 3 of the Seventh Schedule, the proviso to which permits solid fuel made up in a container simply for ease of handling as part of the load of a vehicle or ship to be made up otherwise than in one of the specified weights if the whole load is being delivered to a single buyer. I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has come in and perhaps he will be able to infer the point I am making. The noble Lord then indicated that he thought it was sufficient to meet his point and withdrew his Amendment.
But on looking at the matter again, we have realised that this proviso does not extend to the load of loose solid fuel the weight of which is determined at a weighbridge. It was not our intention that such sales of a whole lorry-load to one buyer should have to be in a multiple of 1 cwt. So long as the fuel is sold by net weight and a document as prescribed under Part III of the Schedule is carried with it, that is all that is necessary. I have therefore

323
put down this Amendment to relieve such loads from the need to be in a multiple of 1 cwt. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 20, at end insert the said sub-paragraph.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to the proviso to paragraph 3. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 33, at end insert ("so far as it consists of solid fuel ")—(The Earl of Dundee.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, paragraph 6 of the Seventh Schedule, to which this Amendment relates, 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. Your Lordships may remember that we had a discussion, which I think interested several' of your Lordships, on an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, to leave out the words, "before delivery thereof is completed". The noble Lord said that he wanted to preserve the requirements of the existing law and argued that in most cases the buyer would not suspect that he was being given short measure until delivery was completed. We have given this matter further consideration, and the Amendment provides for the fuel to be weighed, if the buyer so requests, immediately after delivery—that is before the person delivering it has left—provided the fuel delivered is not mixed with or piled on top of other fuel. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 11, leave out from ("requests") to ("and") in line 14 and insert—

("(a) with respect to any of that fuel the delivery of which has not at the time of the request been completed; or

(b) if the request is made before the departure from the premises at which the fuel is delivered of the person delivering it, with respect to any of that fuel the delivery of which has been completed but which is still capable of identification,

the seller or his agent shall cause the fuel to be weighed in the presence of the buyer and,
324
in the case of any fuel such as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph, before the delivery of that fuel is completed.").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved 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: My Lords, there is a serious defect in this part of the Schedule, in my submission, 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 buyer. In most cases, as we all know, this kind of weighing is done in the street, and often, as we probably also all know, when the buyer is not at home. The procedure which it is proposed to permit provides, it seems to us, endless opportunities for dishonesty by carters. Moreover, dishonesty of this kind is almost impossible to detect by routine inspection and can in most cases be detected and proved only by laying an elaborate and time-consuming trap.
Many local authorities have sought to prevent the practice of weighing in bulk from the point of delivery by by-laws or local legislation requiring coal for delivery for more than one buyer to be carried in sacks each containing a specified quantity. In practice, this legislation and these powers have worked extremely well, and it is considered that it is in the interests of the purchasing public that these powers should not, as is proposed, be taken away from local authorities, but that they should be extended and be applicable and available to all the local authorities who are weights and measures authorities at the same time. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 26, at end insert the said subparagraph.—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I appreciate that a number of local Acts which require coal for different people to be packed in sacks will be repealed by this Bill, and I certainly agree that in most cases the use of sacks would no doubt be the most convenient way to

325
distinguish between quantities intended for delivery to particular customers. I think that in the vast majority of cases this would be the automatic choice of the seller. We have no reason to think that in areas where these by-laws now apply anybody will ever dream of trying to sell coal in this way other than by separate sacks. The reason why we cannot make the requirement universal in the Bill is that it is the practice in a large number of mining areas for miners' coal, which they get at specially cheap prices, or in, some cases free, to be delivered loose, and I am afraid we should get into great trouble if we tried to upset this, with both the miners and the Coal Board.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, there would be no difficulty in excepting the miners, would there?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think there would be, because it is common in mining areas for quantities of loose coal to be carried on the same vehicle to a number of customers, some of them miners. I am advised that you could not make an exception which would be sufficiently specific in order to give special exemption to the people whom you want to exempt. If we find that we are wrong, this matter can always he reconsidered later. But we do not think customers in non-mining areas will agree to accept loose coal separated by boards on a lorry. We do not want to interfere with the custom, which is widespread in the mining areas, of delivering the coal in this manner: in fact, I do not think the Coal Board would agree to deliver it in any other manner, because they are doing it at a specially reduced price and they would not see why they should add to their costs. There are a lot of reasons which I do not think your Lordships would wish me. to go into now why the miners prefer it to be done in that way.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, have the Coal Board been consulted?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I cannot say off-hand that the Coal Board have been asked to give advice on this particular question, but our information is that the practice is so universal in these mining areas that you would gravely interfere with everybody's convenience and with their settled habits if you made a universal law in this Bill that you could not
326
deliver to different people coal which was separated by boards and not done up in containers. We went into this matter fully in Committee, and I do not think any more has been added either from the noble Lord's point of view or from mine; we have merely repeated the same arguments.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am bound to say that the reason which the noble Earl gives for not accepting this Amendment or something like it is singularly unconvincing. As my noble friend has just said, it would be possible to deal with the special case to which the noble Earl has referred by a slight alteration to the terms of this Amendment. Indeed, in so far as the coal is free to miners, this Amendment would not affect it at all; it affects only coal that is for sale. There would be no reason why coal which was delivered free should not go on being delivered loose. If, however, there are cases where coal is sold at a reduced price, then I think it could be met by a slight alteration of this Amendment. If the noble Earl will not accept this Amendment in the form in which it is, will he consider it again? I think we should like to put something down on Third Reading which might meet the case. But it may be we could find something which would meet the difficulty put forward by the noble Earl (which I agree is a genuine one) and nevertheless preserve the position which so many local authorities have already in their legislation. That would obviate the necessity for amending it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I doubt whether it would be possible to achieve the noble Lord's purpose by a slight alteration in the wording of this Amendment. We are dealing with something which is going on on too big and too varied a scale. But I will certainly consider whether anything can be done to meet his purpose, and no doubt we shall have another opportunity of discussing the matter on Third Reading. I quite see the reasons for his desire not to upset the converse arrangements which are in force in some areas, imposed by local weights and measures authorities, that coal shall be sold only in separate containers. We have no reason to suppose that anybody will try to sell it loose in these areas. But I accept the noble Lord's request to look into the question of

327
whether we could achieve his object without interfering with other people's practices.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, may I say this? Would it not be a possibility, at the very least, to leave alone the existing legislation—not to interfere with those authorities who already have the powers?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I will consider that possibility, too.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, in the light of that assurance, and the opportunity to reconsider the matter on Third Reading, if we so decide, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Eighth Schedule [Miscellaneous Goods other than Foods]:
PART III
Chalk, lime, inorganic fertilisers, agricultural salt and Portland cement
3.—(1) Goods to which this Part of this Schedule applies shall be pre-packed only if the container is marked with an indication of quantity, being—
(b) in any other case, quantity by net weight or, if the container does not exceed the permitted weight, quantity either by net weight or by gross weight.
PART IV
Haberdashery
1. This Part of this Schedule applies to goods of any of the following descriptions, that is to say, bias binding, elastic, ribbon, tape and thread,
6.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, when I moved an earlier Amendment to the Third Schedule, designed to permit the use of one-quarter cubic yard, I said that I would put down a further Amendment to permit the use of these measures for the sale of ready-mixed cement and concrete. This is the Amendment to which I referred. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81. line 13, leave out ("half") and insert ("a quarter of ").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is similar to that of Amendment No. 112, which I moved on the Sixth Schedule in relation to chalk, lime, inorganic fertilisers and agricultural salt. Part III of the Eighth Schedule appears to be concerned with protection of the agricultural community against the giving of short-weight. Unfortunately, as the Schedule is drafted it covers lime and inorganic fertilisers, even where these products are supplied for manufacturing industry for use in the manufacture of, or for incorporation in, other products. This is probably not intended. The purpose of my Amendment is to make it clear that chalk, lime and inorganic fertilisers supplied for manufacturing, mixing or compounding purposes are not within the provisions of the Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 45, leave out from ("to") to end of line 46 and insert—

("(a) chalk, lime, inorganic fertilisers and salt where sold or carried for reward with a view to their use for agricultural purposes; and

(b) Portland cement.").—(Lord Jessel.)

THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords. the Government do not intend that the goods listed in sub-paragraph (a) of the Amendment should be covered when they are being supplied for use for manufacturing purposes. I do not think we could accept the Amendment in its present form, because the words "agricultural purposes" may be too narrow to cover horticultural use. For this reason the Government would like to consider the drafting of an alternative Amendment which we will table in another place if the noble Lord will agree to that course.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. As he appears to be in agreement with the principle of my Amendment, I am happy, by the leave of the House, to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, we can see no reason why the articles in this Schedule should be sold by gross weight and not by net weight. We have argued that matter out on several occasions in the course of the passage of this Bill in your Lordships' House, and I do not propose to repeat the speeches that I

329
have made in support of the principle which I have enunciated. I will therefore content myself with saying that I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 24, leave out from ("weight") to the end of line 26.—(Lord Latham.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, on this occasion the noble Lord would have helped me if he had expatiated a little on the point he was making, because I wondered, in considering his Amendment, whether he was thinking of the many small packets or miniature sacks of lime and fertiliser which are sold to the ordinary gardener, and the small packets of cement for the use of the handyman. If he was thinking of that type of package, I should remind him that there are, of course, a number of other considerations. Such goods are commonly sold retail in sacks of 1 cwt. gross. They are, in fact, pre-packed in these quantities. But the same 1 cwt. pack is used on a very much wider scale as a convenient way of handling bulk supplies which are not sold retail to the consumer. To convert the whole of this trade from a gross-weight to a net-weight basis would cause considerable disruption, and to require packs destined for retail sale to be segregated would add to their cost and put up the price by considerably more than the cost of the extra quantity. This rise in real costs would arise from the need to fill them in separate batches, and to keep them separate from similar bags for bulk sale throughout their distribution. The Government, therefore, do not feel able to accept this precise Amendment.
I must explain to the noble Lord, however, that partly because of the production and distribution situation I have described, and because of technical difficulties, the Government are reviewing the whole of this Part of the Schedule. I cannot, in advance of knowing what revised proposals we shall wish to introduce, promise that we shall be able to meet the points made by the noble Lord. Indeed, it may be that we shall have to relax certain of the requirements of the Bill in this connection. We are, however, most anxious to protect the interest of the ordinary consumer buying these goods retail, and what the noble Lord says in that context will be carefully con
330
sidered. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, at what stage shall we have the revised provisions put before us? Will it be on Third Reading?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am not aware how long they have been under consideration, and I cannot promise the noble Lord that they will be ready for the examination of your Lordships by Third Reading.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, in the light of that assurance, which I hope it may be possible speedily to carry out, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, without, of course, receding at all from the proposition that it should be net weight and not gross weight.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn..
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords. I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 29. at end insert—
(" PART IV
Wood fuel
1. Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Part of this Schedule—

(a) wood fuel which is not made up in a container for sale shall be sold by retail only by net weight;

(b) in the case of a sale by retail of wood fuel made up in a container for sale, the quantity by net weight of the goods sold shall be made known to the buyer at or before delivery of the goods to him.

2.—(1) The foregoing paragraph shall not have effect in any area unless the local weights and measures authority having jurisdiction in that area so direct by byelaw.
(2) Not less than one month before making any byelaw by virtue of this paragraph, the local weights and measures authority shall give public notice of their intention to make it by advertisement in one or more newspapers circulating in the area to which the byelaw is to apply.
(3) The local weights and measures authority by whom any byelaw is made by virtue of this paragraph shall give notice of the making thereof to the Board.
3. There shall be exempted from the requirements of paragraph 1 of this Part of this Schedule any sale of wood fuel in a quantity which does not exceed fourteen pounds or which exceeds half a ton.
4. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Seventh Schedule to this Act shall have effect as if any reference therein to solid fuel included a reference to wood fuel.")—(The Earl of Dundee.).
6.10 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD rose to move the first of four Amendments to Part IV with the object of including knitting wools. The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I beg to move the first of these Amendments. On the Committee stage we did not deploy our arguments at great length, in the hope that we could get the Committee stage through before the Recess. But these Amendments are, in our judgment, of considerable substance and importance. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will forgive me should I speak at more length than is usual at this stage of the Bill.
Before I can ask the House to decide on the Amendments I think we must consider, first of all, the importance of the merchandise, the volume of its sale and whether these particular Amendments should be included for the protection of the public. We should also consider what are the known difficulties, the difficulties of the manufacturer and the distributor, should the Amendments be included; and we should also consider the method now adopted for the distribution and retail of this particular merchandise. Having taken all these points into consideration I think we can then decide whether these Amendments should be included. I would remind your Lordships' House that this particular merchandise was carefully considered by the Hodgson Committee, who took into account the various factors that I have just mentioned and clearly came out on the side that this type of merchandise should be included in legislation.
Hand-knitting is a very popular pastime in this country, and many millions of pounds weight of knitting wool or yarns are produced in this country and also for export, in particular to South Africa. I mention South Africa because the requirements for the import of this merchandise into South Africa are very strict. A manufacturer or importer bringing into South Africa knitting wool that did not measure up in weight to the invoice would find very serious trouble, and those manufacturers who export to South Africa have to produce their merchandise in a way we on this side of the House believe they should do for consumers here. Knitting wool ranges in quality and in price; it ranges,
332
it may be, from 2s. to 15s. an ounce. Therefore we are not dealing with a commodity that is rather cheap.
In the colour range, again, we have a very wide variety; and I would stress the problem of colour, because the housewife, the purchaser of knitting wool, when she buys a colour to knit an article, must purchase at that time the full amount she requires for that garment, because knitting wools—or any wools for that matter—have to be dyed, and they are dyed in batches. If your Lordships were to look at a knitting wool ball or skein you would find a batch number. If you chose one colour—say red or blue—and knitted up balls of wool having different batch numbers, while the balls in front of you might look identical in every respect, you would find that you had not far short of a patchwork quilt. I mention these points to stress the importance to the customer that when she buys knitting wool she should know that what she is buying is the exact amount she is instructed to buy from the patterns on which she is working, and of the right colour.
What are the known difficulties? The difficulties were put before the House by the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald. What he said then was that the knitting wool manufacturers producing these yarns had some difficulty; that because of the type of yarn, with its elasticity, they were in some difficulty in producing the exact requirements. I did not question too much the statement of the noble Lord, although I did query it, because my knowledge of the wool industry is that they have to be extremely precise in their make-up and sale of what is basically an expensive raw material. However, that very day I telephoned my secretary and asked her to go into the retail shops and purchase for me some yarns. I wanted to find out how the manufacturers were in fact selling their yarns to-day, and I can tell your Lordships that the twelve balls that were purchased all had a label "one ounce net weight". I have in front of me for my own information a wool manufactured by the firm of Sirdar. It is a double knitting wool with a content of cotton, and it is clearly stated "net weight when packed, one ounce." I have a Patons & Baldwin, which is a 4-ply knitting

333
wool; and here again it is made up as one-ounce net weight.
LORD HAWKE: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, did he say that it was one ounce net weight when packed?
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes.
LORD HAWKE: Are they all labelled as being one ounce when packed?
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes.
LORD ST. OSWALD: What the noble Lord is saying is that the weight stamped on the label is the weight when packed?
LORD SHEPHERD: That is correct. If the noble Lord wishes to see these and others in my office, he is welcome. Irrespective of the quality, irrespective of construction, whether it is wool and cotton or wool and rayon, these balls in front of me are clearly stamped, "One ounce net weight when packed". I understand, from a very reputable manufacturer (I will not mention his name: he is not among those I have mentioned this afternoon) that they have got their production down to a stage that they can get within 2 to 5 per cent. accuracy, and in fact what they do when they turn the yarn in bulk into the made-up pack is to over-weigh by approximately 2 to 3 per cent. I weighed these halls in my office on my airmail weighing machine, and they were exactly in all respects one ounce net weight. I have said this to refute the proposition which the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, made on the Committee stage, that the manufacturers were unable to give this presentation. If the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, was correct, then these manufacturers are selling their merchandise under false pretences because they clearly state on their labels the net weight of their article.
LORD HAWKE: When packed.
LORD SHEPHERD: When packed, certainly. I do not object to that. I stress all the time that it is net weight when packed. It is essential that we have these standards in the Bill for knitting wool.
Why do I stress the importance? Earlier on I mentioned the problem, the difficulty of the housewife in her knitting. I was told by some authority that the
334
housewife was not interested in the number of ounces she requires for her knitting wool. So I did the same thing again; I asked my secretary to bring to the office her knitting patterns. She brought over two dozen, all from different manufacturers. In every case except one there was no mention of the number of balls or hanks; it stated the number of ounces required according to the size of the garment to be knitted. The exception did say the number of balls, but in brackets it said the amount of grammes because that pattern was of Continental production.
I have put this information before your Lordships to show that the manufacturers are able to meet the requirements that I wish to put into the Bill. I do not pretend that the wording of the Amendment to which I am speaking to-day is entirely satisfactory, but I am moving it at this stage of the Bill to seek from this House the principle that this vast industry, with its great sale of knitting wool, should come under the Bill and that the public should have protection under the Bill. If the Government will accept the principle, they certainly can have the words clearly stated that pre-packed knitting wool shall be sold at net weight at time of packing. I think that is necessary. I do not think it is possible to make it net weight at time of sale. But I think it is essential that we have in this Bill net weight at time of packing. The industry is capable of accepting that requirement, and I think the consumer is entitled to that protection. Therefore I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 33, leave out ("and").—(Lord Shepherd.)
6.32 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, noble Lords will recollect that when Amendments with a similar objective were moved on the Committee stage, we explained that the Government had carefully considered the proposals of the Hodgson Committee that knitting yarns in hanks or skeins should be sold by net weight, subject to a standard moisture regain, or by length. I said at that time that the Government had decided against covering these specifically in the Bill, but in view of the feeling expressed we undertook to consider the matter further.

335
Now the question has been discussed further with the trade and we have decided that the Bill should not cover knitting yarn to a greater extent than is done by Clause 25. Clause 25 will enable an inspector to make a check at the factory against at least any gross deficiency or misrepresentation if the wool is marked with its weight at the time of packing, and to check the wool sold in the shop when it is voluntarily marked in accordance with the B.S.I. specification. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has spoken of the present arrangement as if the knitter received the wool, as I understand it, at the weight that it left the factory. He has made a great deal of this matter of the weight when packed stamped on the packet of wool. What is declared is quite certainly not the weight as the consumer knows it.
In order to test a weight under the existing B.S.I. standard, four balls, as a sample, have to be taken and dried at a certain heat in a certain type of laboratory oven. They must be weighed exactly. Then there is added a substantial percentage for what is known as moisture regain, and yet another 4 per cent. to cover manufacturing tolerances. That is the declared weight. One could have a shopful of the best wools which all conformed to this specification, but if the housewife weighed them it might be that none of them would be the right weight. When the noble Lord weighs them they are all the right weight, but in point of fact no manufacturer expects them to be. They might in fact all show a deficiency. I understand that the B.S.I. specification is now under review and that the revised standard under consideration is more complex.
But at the end of the day what really concerns the consumer—and this is a matter for repetition—is not so much the weight, but whether the wool will last out the pattern, or whether she will have to buy some more, meaning both that the garment costs more than she budgeted for and that the shade of colour of the next ball may not match. The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, referred to this. I do not myself knit, but I understand from authoritative sources that there are several reasons why the yarn may not last out the pattern. One of the com-
336
monest is that the knitter uses a pattern which is not compiled by the manufacturer of the particular yarn which she is using, or knits the pattern up in a mixture of yarn other than that recommended by the manufacturer. Since yarns produced at different times by different manufacturers have different characteristics, this could easily lead to the knitter running short. On the other hand, some knitters work tighter than others and may not adjust this by using a different gauge of needle from that which is recommended. Those are two of the most common reasons why the wool runs out before the pattern is finished, and I think the noble Lord would not claim that his Amendment gives much protection against this.
However, in view of the information put forward by the noble Lord on the Committee stage, I myself went into the question of the manufacture of knitting wools, as it were, on the spot. I am geographically well placed to do this, being a native of the West Riding, and by a curious chance it was in a Sirdar factory that I gathered most of my material. I stood and watched cones being run off into balls. I learned that in a run of a particular type and colour of wool (it is normally about 240 lb. to a run) the first set of ounce balls is weighed and the machine is then sot. Four balls are tested halfway through, and again four at the end. Balls with knots are rejected as second-class. There is no winding machine which will measure off an exact ounce.
Experience and calculation, at least in this particular factory, had shown that 15·3 drams (16 drams to the ounce) will show 1 ounce 2 drams when sold, as in the factory it is temperature controlled. Most wool sent out from the factory is in fact well above the 15·3 mark. The machine was stopped in my presence and I took off four balls at random weighing respectively 15·4, 15·8. l6·2 and 16·2 drams. I am sure, from my own observation—I certainly do not want at this hour to inflict any secondhand expertise upon your Lordships—that the trouble about being as precise as the noble Lord wishes to be is that there is such a number of variables in the nature of wool and its winding in the same factory, let alone among different factories. The width of fibre due to the nature of wool uneven tension—it was explained to me at the outset—
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is the noble Lord really suggesting that these manufacturers should not be selling their article as "net weight", but should use the word "approximately"?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, what I am going to explain is why they sell the wool in the way they do to the customers and why the customers are perfectly satisfied by the present arrangements. Apart from the width of fibre which I have described, there is the moisture content and even the kind of dyestuff used. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for reasons of his own, stressed the importance of colour. What is rather strange to my mind and quite new and novel to me is that the molecular structure of dyes for deeper shades affects the weight, because it affects shrinkage. As a result, what the wool manufacturer aims at is to promise the housewife that if she buys 12 balls of wool she will get 12 oz. in the aggregate.
Moreover, my information—and I should say that most of it comes from the Wool Textile Delegation Hand Knitting Committee—is this. Reputable spinners working to the present and the proposed British Standard 984 require to weigh out on average between 1½ and 3½ per cent. above the nominal weight depending on the method of manufacture used. This results in approximately 25 per cent. of the individual packages weighing less than nominal weight and 75 per cent. at the aggregate weight or greater. In referring to the packages I am referring to the packages with standard moisture content. I was told that conditions in retail shops would probably vary from 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. dryness in an unheated shop in summer time to 8 per cent., possibly even 10 per cent., dryness in a heated store in cold weather in winter.
The noble Lord referred to the specifications insisted upon in South Africa. What I did not understand—he may have explained it and I may have been too slow to gather it—was this: I did not gather whether the wool was weighed in England before dispatch or in South Africa. I point that out because there is the fact that South Africa has a far more stable climate than we have and the factors would not be the same. But if he is telling me that
338
the wool is weighed in England, Yorkshire or wherever it may be, and they can tell what it will weigh in South Africa after its passage, I am extremely surprised. I will say no more.
The combined effect of the influences that I have mentioned is that if it were required that packages should always register on the scales the nominal weight regardless of atmospheric conditions and manufacturing variations, the average package weight would have to be increased by approximately 20 per cent. as compared to the present practice. This would certainly result in an increase in price and chaos in the trade. The noble Lord knows a great deal about commercial customs and transactions and would agree that if 20 per cent. had to be added it would result in chaos in any trade of this nature. Moreover, all knitting leaflet instructions would automatically become obsolete, and as popular designs are normally kept for many years, this would provide an even greater problem for the knitters than for the manufacturers.
On the last occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, opened one interjection by saying [OFFICIAL, REPORT, Vol. 227 (No. 27), col. 992]:
"I have always tried to be polite"—
that is, of course, absolutely true—
"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.…They know to the very closest part of an ounce what they are selling."
Such is my respect for the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that, even an unpalatable possibility such as that, I am bound to take with a certain seriousness. So after the debate, during the Christmas Recess, I telephoned the Managing Director of Patons and Baldwins and asked if this was so. He told me, in paraphrase, that it was not. So I came to the not entirely reluctant conclusion that perhaps I had not been talking nonsense.
We think that the Amendment would not satisfy the knitter who is primarily concerned to see that the wool lasts out the pattern. That is a matter which cannot be overstressed. It would not even help the person who wants to check on the net weight of wool she is buying, because she could not prove or disprove the statement of weight without

339
the necessary equipment and skill. Contrary to what has been, I think, suggested or implied by the noble Lord, it would also not be acceptable to the manufacturer who, if the law is to cover knitting wool at all, would want the whole of the B.S.I. specification to be applied—not only part of it, as under the Amendment, as I read it. Nor do I know whether all the local authorities would wish to add a very expensive item to the equipment they need to buy for such a special kind of technical test of weight, in this case, where the purchaser is interested in finishing a pattern rather than in the weight. I doubt it.
The crucial fact in all this is that the consumer is using a length of yarn, and in the mill the balls and hanks are actually packed or made up by length. Everyone has grown used to talking about ounces of wool to save the difficulty of talking about hundreds of yards in patterns and balls, although weight is strictly inappropriate to the commodity when it is knitting yarns. The Amendment recognises this by allowing variations based on part of a B.S.I. specification. It looks very helpful to the consumer, but the Government have taken the view that in practice it is likely to make a confused situation, and I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
6.37 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I would not wish to add to the impressive and powerful speech made by my noble friend Lord Shepherd. I intervene in the debate on this particular Amendment only to refer to the submissions made by the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, first, that the customers were satisfied as to the procedure, and, secondly, that the local authorities were hesitant about adopting a new procedure because of the additional equipment that would be necessary. I only want to say, in connection with both those submissions, which I think I have correctly stated, that the Hodgson Committee stated that they had received from local authorities and from a number of women's associations requests that the sale by weight of knitting wool and similar commodities should be regularised under the Weights and Measures law. They went on further to recommend that all knitting wool, including rug-making, embroidery, tapestry and crewel wools,
340
should be sold by net weight only and bear an indication of minimum and net weight based on moisture consideration. I think it is important that these factors should be stated in the consideration of this important matter.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, in view of the fact that Lord Shepherd based his argument on a great deal of his own experience in weighing certain samples of wool, I hope he will forgive me for asking him whether he has had his office scales regularly tested and when they were last tested.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I have been tremendously impressed, as I frequently am, by the research which the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, has indulged in in preparing to answer this Amendment. I was particularly impressed by two points which he made. The first was that the average weight (I took it down and I hope I am not misquoting him) of the knitting wools would have to be increased by 20 per cent. to ensure at all times net weight.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Of each ball.
LORD STONHAM: And that if the net weight was thus increased by 20 per cent. the result in the industry and to the knitters would be absolute chaos. I think he is absolutely right. In fact—and here I regret to have to differ to some extent from my noble friend—it seems to me that it is absolutely impossible, with wool, to ensure that at all times, under all conditions, the net weight will be the weight on the package. Of course, the only way to be absolutely certain is, as the noble Lord said, to pack at least 20 per cent. overweight or, if he likes, 50 per cent. overweight, and the result would be simply absurd. Now having agreed so emphatically with the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, I think I am entitled to ask: did not his mind go back to his speech of about an hour or an hour and a half ago, when, in answer to a precisely similar case which I made in respect to pre-packed vegetables, he gave a precisely opposite answer?
LORD ST. OSWALD: No. My Lords, I think I am allowed to intervene here. My mind did not go back, because it was on a completely different subject. The fact is that here the noble Lord

341
is really not talking fairly to himself, because there was only the one factor involved in vegetables and that was moisture evaporation, whereas, as I took great pains to point out, in wool there are half a dozen factors of different natures.
LORD STONHAM: I am quite sure that that is right; but all the half-dozen factors, so far as I understand them, are either the taking in or the ejectment of moisture, either through one form or another, either through evaporation or because of the hygroscopic qualities. I listened most carefully to the noble Lord —and I shall, of course, read his speech again, as I hope he will read again both the speeches which he has made and to which I have referred—and it seemed to me that he was absolutely right and that the two cases are completely parallel.
The other remarks which he made with which I am in agreement was that the customer is not concerned about the weight but whether the wool lasts out the pattern; and I venture to suggest that, in a packet of potatoes, the housewife is not concerned with whether they are 5 oz. underweight as compared with when they were packed as with the number of potatoes in the pot. In fact, I would challenge the noble Lord to say that there is any difference between those two arguments.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am sorry, but since the noble Lord is challenging me I must say that some of the factors had nothing to do with evaporation at all. They were to do with tension.
LORD STONHAM: I had moved from that point and had come back to his observation that the customer is not concerned about the weight but whether the wool lasts out the pattern. That is nothing at all to do with hygroscopic qualities or tension or anything else: it is to do with how far the quantity goes —and that is right. I think that that is what the customer is concerned with, and that was exactly my point in the other case which I put forward: how far does the quantity go? And the quantity is completely unaffected by the evaporation or the hygroscopic qualities. I think that on this occasion the noble Lord is right, but I ask him, and I ask the Gov-
342
ernment, to be consistent in this matter. It is impossible, and completely unjustifiable, for them to take one decision over cheese, to take a completely parallel decision over wool, and to take two completely opposite decisions, with comparable sets of facts, over vegetables and tobacco. I ask the noble Lord, therefore, to read again both his speeches, made on the same day within an hour and a half, and to see if, by Third Reading, he cannot come to the same conclusion on my Amendment as he has done on this one.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I am in some dilemma here, because I was asked to speak against this Amendment, and to anybody who has been brought up in the textile trade the Amendment as drafted is nonsensical. But the noble Lord, in moving the Amendment, has made a very substantial change to it. He said he would be quite satisfied if it talked of net weight when packed.
LORD SHEPHERD: No; net weight at packing. It is a little different when packed.
LORD HAWKE: Then put it that way, net weight at packing. The arguments that I have received from responsible trade people, and which appear to be remarkably similar to the ones with which the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite has been regaling us, dealt with two difficulties: first of all, the difficulty of the manufacturing side; and, secondly, the difficulty of the hygroscopicity of the product. The noble Lord's Amendment as drafted is torpedoed on both counts, but, as he amends it, of course, it becomes difficult only by reason of the manufacturing difficulties. For that reason, quite frankly, I do not know to what extent the people concerned, those who have to make the stuff, would oppose it as seriously as they do the present Amendment, which is quite anathema to them. They say it is quite impracticable.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, this Amendment seems to 'pose certain difficulties. I am no authority on the woollen industry, but I have been concerned with wool in winding it, and so forth, and I have felt the various textures of wool that there are to-day—and there are very many qualities of wool. Some, I believe, have a nylon content, and some

343
are pure wool; and I should have thought that one must differentiate between wools that have a big shrinking content and wools which are supposed not to shrink. It seems to me that we have to make some allowances here. You get a wool like angora wool, which is used for baby clothes, which is a very soft wool, and which is probably of very much finer quality than many of the wools used in pullovers; and this, I should have thought, would have a much greater shrinking content. Therefore, while I think there is some substance in the Amendment, the words "knitting wools" seem to be altogether too general. Perhaps those noble Lords who are more expert on the woollen manufacturing side can comment on this.
6.47 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, with permission, may I say one or two words, first of all to the noble Lord, Lord Jessel? I hope that my weighing machines are accurate. We send out a great deal of mail by air which we weigh on the scales. I may be defrauding the Post Office if they are out one way, or I may be losing money myself if they are out the other. The noble Lord used one word—"reputable": he referred to "the reputable manufacturer". Those manufacturers whose knitting wool I have mentioned this afternoon are reputable—let us get that perfectly clear. But what of the others? What about the imported wool which is brought in without any particular trade mark? Are we, because of (I think exaggerated) difficulties at the moment, going to put these reputable manufacturers at a disadvantage? We are not interested only in consumer protection: surely we are also interested in the position of the reputable manufacturer.
I fully agree that the Amendment that I have moved this afternoon does not stand up; but it would stand up if we could bring in the words "net weight at time of packing". The pattern says what the housewife requires to knit the article, and if the weight of the wool sold is as inaccurate as the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, would have us believe, she is going to be in difficulties. But I do not believe that the manufacturer is as inaccurate as the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, has suggested. I believe
344
that none of those manufacturers I have quoted to-day would put on their goods "one ounce net weight"—a clear definition of the weight—unless they were satisfied that what they were producing, not on average but a vast percentage of it, was as stated on the label. Because if it were not so, they would be selling under false pretences, and none of those manufacturers I would put in that class. I do not propose pressing this Amendment this evening. I am disappointed that the Government could not come some way toward accepting the principle, but I propose putting down a further Amendment on Third Reading.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Is the noble Lord asking leave to withdraw his Amendment?
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, on page 83, line 2, the noble Lord, Lord Latham, moved in Committee an Amendment to leave out the word "domestic", which he did in one sentence, saying that he wanted to remove doubt as to whether cattle food was domestic. On being assured that it was not intended to be so, the noble Lord withdrew his Amendment. The Government have come to the conclusion that it would be helpful if the wording of this sub-paragraph could be amended so as to make the field which it covers clearer, and I think the present Amendment does that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, leave out line 2 and insert—
("(d) articles offered as feed for household pets, being manufactured feed or bird feed; ").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
6.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert—
("(h) soap in any form other than that of a liquid; ").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
Ninth Schedule [Composite Goods and Collections of Articles]:
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, this is a new Amendment intended to clarify the conditions under which com-

345
posite goods and collections of articles, which are dealt with in the Ninth Schedule, may be sold. It is provided in the Bill that.
(2) Any collection to which this paragraph applies shall he pre-packed only if—

(a) the container in which the collection is pre-packed is marked with an indication of the quantity of each of any such articles as aforesaid contained therein; or

(b) each of any such articles contained therein is made up in an individual container marked with an indication of quantity.

In order to make clear what that means, we are proposing to add the words printed on the Marshalled List. I think they will remove any doubt as to the type of pre-packing which is required. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 49. at end insert ("being in either case the like indication of the quantity of each of those articles as would have been required if they had been ore-packed for sale separately.")—(The Earl of Dundee.)
Tenth Schedule [Repeals extending to Great Britain]:
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in Part I [" Enactments repealed as from six months after passing of this Act"], to leave out the entry relating to the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1887. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that this Amendment will meet with your Lordships' approval, and at the same time I should like to take the next two following Amendments, the last appearing on the Order Paper. I think it is almost becoming a habit of mine to be last on the Order Paper. However, it gives me the opportunity and privilege of thanking the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, for the way in which they have met us and kept the assurances which they gave on Committee stage, and to thank them for the very great work they have undertaken in the intervening period, for which we are extremely grateful.
These three Amendments are all on exactly the same point, and refer to the fact that three sections of Acts of Parliament are to be repealed, all of which provide that cattle weighbridges, or cattle weighing machines, must be tested at least twice a year. The repeal of those three enactments means that the only certainty, in future, is that these machines will be weighed once a year. This is a matter
346
which causes the National Farmers' Union, and all farmers, considerable concern, because they feel that this is not sufficiently frequent. They would like the machines to be tested at least four times a year. Indeed, as I indicated at an earlier stage of our proceedings, they would like the certified operator to be able to test them either every day or on every occasion when their use is resumed after an interval.
The noble Earl, during the previous discussion, pointed out, quite rightly, that these scales could be tested on other occasions at the request of the user, on payment, of course, of the appropriate inspection fee. The noble Earl also pointed out that the Board of Trade, when they make regulations, can frame those regulations to ensure that these scales are tested with reasonable frequency. But the reluctance of the Government to accept these particular Amendments, or indeed an alternative 'which I moved in an attempt to be helpful on this matter, does alarm farmers, who are aware of the considerable risk, because of the nature of their use of these scales, that these scales will frequently become inaccurate, as it were. And they are not comforted by the assurances which have been given by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that it is in their interests and that they will be looked after by the local marketing authority, who will ensure that the scales are tested with reasonable frequency.
There was one phrase of the noble Earl which occurred to me. He said that the frequency with which a machine is inspected can be left, and ought to be left, to the local authority and the local inspector. But the people who are mainly concerned in this matter are the buyers and sellers of the cattle. It is their principal interest to be absolutely certain that the weighing scales are accurate. I am ready to concede that the Government have very carefully considered this matter, that they think the older enactments ought to be repealed, and that the new provisions will be adequate when the regulations are framed' and put into effect. If that is so, I hope that the noble Earl will take this opportunity of giving some assurance in that regard, in some words of whichever form he likes, which will reassure farmers, and particularly the National

347
Farmers' Union, who, I would assure him, are most concerned about this matter. I am certain that the Government will want to see that the scales are tested with sufficient frequency, or will want to give an assurance that this point will be considered when the regulations are framed. I think that such an assurance should be given to relieve the anxiety which is felt in this matter, and I hope the noble Earl will take this opportunity of so doing. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 22, leave out the entry relating to the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act. 1887 (Lord Stonham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the Government fully understand the desire of the National Farmers' Union, on whose behalf, I think, the noble Lord is moving these Amendments, that the machines on which the animals they are buying and selling are weighed should always be in an accurate condition, but I must repeat what I have said, both in Committee and on Clause 14, I think, at the session before last: that we consider that mandatory provisions of the kind contained in these obsolete enactments which we are proposing to repeal are quite unnecessary. The machines and weights, being in use for trade, have to be passed and stamped by an inspector before use and be subject to periodical inspection thereafter. That is the requirement; and if in any case additional tests beyond those which are mandatory are thought to be necessary, either by the local weights and measures authority or by the inspector or by the proprietor of the market, ad hoc requests can always be made to the inspector, who, on payment of the prescribed fee, will be prepared to carry out these tests.
348
As I said when I replied to a similar Amendment the other day, it is part of an inspector's job to know which machines in his area are subject to hard use and to arrange to inspect those machines as frequently as necessary. In the great majority of cases I do not think that requests for further tests will be necessary, but if there are any exceptional conditions of hard treatment of machines, there is nothing to prevent their being tested every week or, indeed, every day, if the people who are using them think that that is desirable.
Of the three enactments which are partially repealed here, two have been already dealt with in Committee—that is, the Markets and Fairs Act, 1887, and the Food and Drugs Act, 1955. The noble Lord is now proposing to prevent the repeal of certain sections of the Markets and Fairs Act, 1847. I have a good deal of information about that, but as he has not gone into the matter I think it would be a hardship on your Lordships and on the noble Lord to reply to what he has not brought forward in moving his Amendment. I prefer to reciprocate the kind things he said in moving his Amendment, which is the last one to be moved, and to say that we are grateful to him for the help that he has given us on this Bill. I am sorry that this final Amendment is not one of the very many on which we have been able to meet him.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his reply. I am only sorry that it is not more satisfactory and that, in the circumstances, I cannot withdraw my Amendment but must allow it to be negatived.
On Question, Amendment negatived
House adjourned at five minutes past seven o'clock.