Lords Sitting of 8 April 1963

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Chancellor
The Viscount Hanworth—Took the Oath
The Viscount Gought—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRESS STATEMENT ON CONSUMER COUNCIL
2.35 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: 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, in view of the information supplied to them by the Baroness Burton of Coventry, they will make a further statement concerning any details given orally to the Press on Tuesday, March 26 last when the appointment of a Chairman of the Consumer Council was announced.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): No, my Lords.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, may I ask the Lord President why, when I sent to the Government information, taken from the Daily Telegraph on Tuesday last, which stated, referring to the Minister of State—and I quote—that
"the Minister must have known that both the information and the subsequent correction came from the Government",
and when there were three points which appeared in the reputable Press the next day which were not contained in the Press release of the day before, the Government find it impossible to tell the House from where this information came?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I said that the Government did not think it right to make a further statement.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: But, my Lords, may I ask the Lord President why it is not possible, when quite obviously somebody has slipped up—and we can all make mistakes—for the Government to say that they regret that something of this nature did happen, so that we can leave the matter? Is he aware that in Parliament, where his experience is much longer than mine, when a Member of either side of the House sends in information from a reputable newspaper which would imply that a Government spokesman has made an incorrect statement, it surely is something new for the Government to refuse a statement on it?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not accept that my noble friend's statement was incorrect.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, can the noble Viscount give us some information as to why there is secrecy and reticence in this matter?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not accept that there has been any secrecy in the matter.

UNITED NATIONS BOND ISSUE
2.38 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: 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 regarding the invitation to member countries of the United Nations to subscribe to a series of Bonds, what is the progress to date in regard to members' proportionate subscriptions compared with what a full response proportionately would be.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, of the $200 million worth of bonds offered for sale, approximately $125 million worth have been purchased by 41 Governments, five of whom are not members of the United Nations. Your Lordships may be interested to know that these five Governments were those of the Federal German Republic, Kuwait, the Republic of Korea, Switzerland and Vietnam. In addition, seventeen Governments have

797
pledged themselves to purchase bonds to the value of a further $14 million. More than half the members of the Organisation—members who between them contribute approximately one-third of the regular budget—have neither bought bonds nor pledged themselves to do so. If these members bought bonds on the same scale as their percentage contributions to the regular budget, the issue would be over-subscribed.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask whether the noble Earl is able to state to what extent the United Nations is in debt on current account—in other words, how much it is "in the red"?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am not sure that can give my noble friend that information at the moment, but according to the latest information given by the Secretary-General in his report to the last session of the General Assembly, figures for unpaid bills amounted to $139 million. In addition, the costs of the Congo and Middle East operations have been running at approximately 11·5 million dollars per month. Total arrears of contribution to the regular budget and the special accounts as at February 28 amounted to $111 million. As against this, the amount raised by the bond issue is $125 million; if all pledges by members to purchase bonds are taken up, this figure would be $150 million.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for his reply, may I ask whether he is in a position to make any comment on the fact that since I put down my Question it has been reported in The Times that Britain is one of the few members who so far have paid their contributions in full? It further says:
" … everyone would be expected to contribute. If some refused, the rest would make up the deficit."
Is there no limit to the commitments that our taxpayers are likely to be called upon to bear?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we are not proposing to undertake unlimited commitments. We have put forward two alternative proposals in the United Nations for future methods of collecting money for special operations, such as the Congo or the Middle East. We want only to get agreement about
798
it, and I believe it will be discussed in the appropriate Committee on May 14.

HONG KONG WOMEN DOCTORS
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that women doctors in the Colonial Medical Service in Hong Kong are not paid at the same rate as men, and why this discrimination exists in this Colony alone, while doctors of both sexes are paid at the same rate in the rest of the Commonwealth.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS OFFICE (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, the position in Hong Kong is, I understand, that women medical officers engaged on "career" terms and having the requisite three years' post-qualification experience receive equal pay. Temporary women medical officers are employed on a lower scale. The question of equal pay for temporary women officers, including medical officers, was reviewed by the Government of Hong Kong in September of last year, but for financial and other reasons it was decided that no change could be made.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that this is a most curious position? In the whole of the Commonwealth women doctors are paid equally with men, and now, because of these conditions, the Hong Kong University and the Colonial Medical Service are black-listed in the newspapers and the medical papers which carry advertisements for women doctors. As a result of the position he has outlined—this curious contravention—only one-third of the women doctors in Hong Kong ever reach equal pay. I want to know why there is this discrimination, in view of the fact that the Platt Committee, which examined this matter in 1959, recommended that there should be equal remuneration.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I can add little to what I have said. The Hong Kong Government has reviewed the matter. It is within its

799
jurisdiction, and it feels that a distinction should be drawn between career and temporary doctors. One of the reasons is that the great majority of temporary doctors are married and have other obligations in their lives than the full-time medical profession, and the Hong Kong Government, in its wisdom, has seen fit to draw this distinction: "career" on one side and "temporary" on the other.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Duke whether he is aware that women doctors marry in every country in the Commonwealth?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I am quite aware of it and glad that it is so.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, can the noble Duke say how many doctors are career doctors and how many are temporary; and is there any special reason why a temporary doctor cannot become a career doctor? Is it the point that there may be some restriction on the number of women doctors who may be employed by the Hong Kong Government on a career basis, if that is the correct term, and that therefore doctors remain temporary and in this position of inequality?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, the numbers asked for are as follows: 29 of the 83 doctors in Hong Kong are career and the remaining 54 are serving on temporary terms. As I understand it—and I am subject to correction as I am answering from a portfolio; it is not directly my concern—it is a matter for the officers concerned whether they become career or temporary. It is a matter of terms of reference. Whether under the Hong Kong Administration the number of career doctors is limited is a matter I will find out and inform the noble Lord of the answer.
LORD REA: My Lords, do the 54 doctors comprise both sexes?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The 54 are women doctors.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask—and I am learning from the noble Duke's reply—whether this differential in payment to the tem-
800
porary doctors exists in any other Colonies, in Kenya or Aden besides Hong Kong; or is Hong Kong the only Colony where this differential exists?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I hope the noble Earl will forgive me if I ask for notice of that question.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, could the noble Duke say whether male doctors, if temporary, receive the same salary as a career male doctor? Because if the noble Duke could give us that information, we could see whether the ladies are being treated ill or on a par with the males.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: So far as I am aware, male doctors receive the same salary; but it must be becoming increasingly clear to your Lordships that I am on thin ice in answering these questions. Should I be wrong—and it would not be for the first time—I will let the noble Lord know. I think I am right in saying what I have said.

BASUTOLAND: ARREST OF MR. LEBALLO
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: 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 Mr. Leballo, or other members of the African National Congress, have been arrested by the police in Basutoland, and, if so, on what grounds they have been detained.]
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, a warrant has been issued for the arrest of Mr. Leballo on a charge of incitement to public violence in Basutoland. A warrant was also issued for the search of Mr. Leballo's house and the offices of the Pan-Africanist Congress in Maseru. But I understand that Mr. Leballo has not so far been located. Some small arms, ammunition and documents were discovered during the search. The police arrested two persons for obstruction and one for incitement to public violence. Nine persons were also detained under the Entry and Residence Proclamation, of whom only one is still in custody. None of these twelve were Basutos. Until the investigation is completed, and this will be done as soon

801
as possible, I cannot say what further proceedings will be taken. No arrest in Basutoland of African National Congress members has been reported.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Duke. May I say how grateful we are for his having acquitted himself sc admirably in relation to a Department with which he is not directly concerned? I should like to ask two supplementary questions. First, were the contents of any of the documents that were seized by the Basuto police communicated to the South African police or to the South African Government? Second, in view of the deterioration of relations between the South African Government and the High Commission Territories, would the Government not contemplate taking further action to stop any further deterioration?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, as regards the second question, I am certain that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has this very much in mind and will take all steps that are necessary. As regards the first question, it raises very much wider issues than the original Question raises, and I think it would be unwise for me to reply to it in any sense whatsoever at this stage.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure the noble Duke will appreciate that we all attach great importance to the first question that I asked, and I should like to put it down again as a Written Question, not as a supplementary, before the Recess, if there is an opportunity on Wednesday.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl very much and take note that he will put the Question down.

LEGAL AID BILL [H.L.]
2.51 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, last Thursday I made a statement with regard to the Legal Aid Bill, and I told your Lordships that I did riot intend to move, when the time came "That the Bill do now pass". I should, if the House will permit me, like to make a further statement on the matter, for the impression may have been
802
gained that there was something improper in this House discussing and considering the terms of this Bill.
I should like to make it clear, if I can, that there was no impropriety. This House can—and I am sure your Lordships would wish this to be maintained—discuss any Motion or any Bill it chooses. Each House is the guardian of its privileges; and, while it not the duty of either House to uphold the privileges of the other, your Lordships' House recognises the privileges of the House of Commons with regard to finance. Your Lordships are, I am sure, all aware of the procedure with regard to privilege Amendments, by which offending provisions are nullified or removed before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House and is sent to the Commons. The position is different where the contents of the Bill as a whole are purely financial, or where the financial provisions are not susceptible of separation from its other provisions. In Erskine May it is written, at page 807, with regard to such Bills,
" … it may be stated generally that the Commons (contrary to their practice regarding amendments) never waive their privileges in relation to public Bills sent down from the Lords",
and a little later,
"the practice in this matter is now so regular and well understood that the Lords never deliberately send down a Bill which formally infringes the privileges of the Commons."
If the Lords do send down such a Bill, the Commons lay it aside.
While, in my submission, there was nothing wrong in my asking your Lordships to consider this Bill, and nothing unconstitutional in your Lordships' considering it, I did not think it right that I should ask your Lordships to pass it with the inevitable consequence that it would be laid aside. But I hope that none of your Lordships will assert that there is any limitation on what your Lordships can discuss, any more than that there was anything wrong in your Lordships considering Bills in the past which, when they got to the commons, were laid aside. I hope that I have said enough to dispose of any suggestion that your Lordships have, at my instigation, been acting unconstitutionally in relation to this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, last Thursday referred to the Leader of the House of Commons and suggested that he was responsible for the course pursued in

803
your Lordships' House. That, my Lords, is not so. It is my responsibility, and mine alone.
The question may be asked: "What it the purpose of considering a Bill if, when it has been considered by this House, it is going to be laid aside?" I should like to say a little, if I may, on that. I certainly do not share the view that the debate we had on Second Reading was a waste of time. It was a most valuable debate, and I was glad to get your Lordships' reaction to the Government's proposals. I had hoped to get the benefit of your Lordships' views on the detailed provisions of this Bill during the course of the Committee stage. They would, I know, have been most valuable and I hoped that the result would be that, with your Lordships' assistance, we should get a Bill which met entirely with your Lordships' approval.
It was not my intention to ask your Lordships to pass the Bill, but it was proposed to introduce in the House of Commons a Bill the contents of which would be the same as those of the Bill approved, but not passed, by your Lordships. If that House of Commons Bill was passed, it would then come to your Lordships' House. If the contents were not altered in the Commons, your Lordships might not have thought it necessary to spend much time upon it. If the contents were altered your Lordships might have thought it was necessary only to consider the alterations. That was the plan, and I hope that I have said sufficient to satisfy your Lordships that I was not inviting your Lordships to waste your time or to engage in a useless exercise.
From such inquiries as I have been able to make, there is really no prospect of a Legal Aid Bill coming here from the Commons till late in the Session. As your Lordships know only too well, the pressure of work then on your Lordships is very great. In July, it might prove very difficult indeed, if the Bill did come here from the Commons, to find enough time for proper consideration of it, if your Lordships saw it then for the first time. I had hoped that the course I proposed would be to your Lordships' convenience and give your Lordships ample time now for consideration of the Government's proposals. It is an
804
important Bill, designed to remove injustice, and welcomed by all Parties, but I should have liked your Lordships' views upon it during the Committee stage. However, I do not think it would be right, in view of the reaction to my statement last Thursday, for me now to ask your Lordships to give further consideration to the Bill, useful and valuable though that consideration would be, and therefore, I think it right that I should take this opportunity of saying that I shall not, in the circumstances, ask your Lordships to proceed further with the Bill.
2.56 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure that the House will appreciate the statement which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has just made and the spirit in which he has made it. I fully understand that his object in introducing the Bill in this House was in order to get the views of this House, and I would assure him at once that it was never in my mind, and I am sure not in the mind of my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, that there was any impropriety in the matter; still less that there was anything to be criticised in the way in which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack dealt with the matter. We have all known him for very many years, and the last thing that we should wish to impute to him is the slightest suggestion of any impropriety.
Having said that, I should add that I think it would have been wiser if the noble and learned Lord had taken the House into his confidence at the outset and explained to us what he had in mind. None of us had any idea, when the Bill was introduced on Second Reading, that it was the intention of the noble and learned Lord to carry the matter up to the Third Reading and then to drop the Bill. Further, if that had been the intention at the time, it might have been advisable if there had been some discussion on this point through the usual channels. I think that the time of the House would have been saved and we might have arrived at an amicable conclusion.
I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that this is a useful or desirable method of ascertaining the views of the

805
House. I do not think it right that the House should be asked solemnly to go through the farce of having a Second Reading of a Bill, Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading, merely in order to ascertain the views of the House. It may be that it has been done on other occasions. I cannot remember. It must have been done in my absence, because, if I had been present I should certainly have raised a protest. There is machinery in this House, and very effective machinery, for ascertaining the views of the House. I would respectfully suggest that we have the Motion. If it was thought desirable to ascertain the views of the House on the principle of giving assistance to unassisted persons who fight successful actions against legally assisted persons, if that was the intention, surely it would have been very easy, in the early days of the Session, when we are sometimes looking for Business and have not much to do, for the Government to present a White Paper setting out all their thoughts in this matter, which we could have discussed on a Motion.
We could have had a wider discussion on such a Motion than was in order on the Second Reading (though I must say that some of us did not limit ourselves to the exact proposals in the Bill) possibly on the whole question of legal aid, and certainly on this particular question, and whether it was desirable to go rather further than was suggested in the Bill itself. I am sure that if that had been discussed in the early days of the Session we could have had a Bill presented in good time and it would have had a very good chance of going through this Session. As it is—and I welcome the decision of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack not to pursue the matter further—it looks as if I shall once more have to make the speech that I usually make in July, saying that we are not given enough time to discuss properly measures which come from another place.
While I am on my feet, I would respectfully ask your Lordships to give me your indulgence if I say one or two words more. This is a perennial problem, this problem of Bills, sometimes complicated, needing the attention of this House coming up late in the Session, with the result that we are pushed either to sit very late when we are not physically in a position to give them our undivided attention, or to pass them cursorily without
806
going through them in that detail which they might deserve. It does seem as if the time has come when we might reconsider our procedure. I think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack made a suggestion of that kind, and I very much welcome it. We are not afraid of altering our procedure (we encouraged one alteration only the other day), and I am sure we could do better than we are doing at the present time and not be pushed every year into this unhappy position.
It so happens that there is on the Order Paper a Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Shackleton which is due for discussion fairly soon, and I hope that we may use that opportunity of discussing the whole question of our procedure and whether we can do rather better than we have done in the past. But to-day I should like to welcome the decision of the Lord Chancellor not to proceed further with this Bill. I hope that we shall not lose the Bill, and that it will be possible to get a Bill from another place which we shall be able to support. I can give the noble and learned Lord my own assurance, and I am sure that of my noble friends, that when this Bill comes we shall do everything in our power, because we support the principle of it, to get it through this Session.
3.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his conciliatory approach to this matter, and I want, if I may, to add something from my point of view. I fully accept the point he made to begin with, that the Opposition should have been consulted before this experiment was made. I was under the impression that they had been, otherwise I should have seen to it that they were. I must accept responsibility for not having seen that they were consulted. I was under a misapprehension, and I can only apologise to your Lordships. On the other hand, I do not think the Motion as an alternative means of procedure would do. I very much hope that we shall have an opportunity of discussing both this and other difficulties in relation to the machinery of government on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred. But I do not think this difficulty is primarily a question of procedure, although it is

807
closely bound up with the legal history of Parliament itself.
The real nature of our difficulties stems from the fact that, quite properly, another place desire to consider first the main programme Bills of the Government, and as they always take their time in that consideration, and as they have the apparatus in Standing Committees to consider several Bills in parallel, this means that a number of Bills come to us comparatively late in the Session and we have to work very fast in order to carry them through. I doubt whether an alteration in our procedure would solve that difficulty. This experiment was designed to deal with this very problem, and it is for this reason that I am sorry that in this particular case it has met with this fate. It was felt, I think rightly, to be a legitimate extension of the practice we adopt over privilege Amendments, and I cannot help believing that if I had been more rapid in my appreciation of the fact that the Opposition had not been adequately consulted this Bill might have had a better fate. I do riot want to say more about the matter this afternoon, except to say how grateful I am to the noble Lord for taking this conciliatory point of view and accepting my noble and learned friend's statement in the spirit in which it was tendered.
3.7 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I will not detain you for long, but perhaps I may be allowed to say one or two words. First, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for his very frank and full explanation of the whole matter from its inception. With great respect, I would say that we on these Benches feel that he has come to a very sound conclusion in deciding not to proceed further with the Bill. I am not going into the complications of Parliamentary procedure, but it seems to some of us on this side of the House that the matter arose out of the congestion of Business, and that, in order to facilitate Business, what amounted to a device was arrived at whereby your Lordships were asked to go through the motions of passing a Bill up to the last stage and then accept the fact that it was never meant to go on the Statute Book at all, except by chance if it
808
came up in a similar form from the other House. It seems to me that that is slightly making an abuse of your Lordships' House, to go through the motions of a mime in order to help matters. If time has to be found, and some device has to be found, I would suggest, with respect, that it is for the Government to make time in their own programme and not to utilise your Lordships' House for a way round a difficult situation.

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL
Read 2ª, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
NURSING HOMES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed.
DOG RACING (APPOINTED DAYS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL
3.9 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, I hope your Lordships feel you are welcoming an old friend. When the earlier Bill was before the House we spent seven days in Committee and three days on Report and a large number of Amendments were dealt with, some 280 in all in Committee and a further 140 on Report. The Bill as it left the House in February, 1961, did, however, reflect the results of your Lordships' consideration, since the No. 2 Bill which the Government introduced in another place in July, 1961, contained further Amendments of detail, a large number of which stemmed directly from proposals made in this House. Although, like other noble Lords at the time, I felt my time had been wasted—your Lordships will remember I was on the other side of the barricade at that time—I do not now think our time was, in fact, wasted. It is a much better Bill, largely, as I hope your Lordships will agree, because of what happened in your Lordships' House last time.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I do not wish to pursue this question of wasting time, but does the noble Lord seriously think that this is the most efficient way in which we can use our time—to collect the views of the House? Does he really think it is necessary to go through hundreds of Amendments, many of which are rejected, on Committee and on Report in order to collect the views of the House? Surely some better way can be found.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am quite certain it is an inefficient way. I am merely saying for the comfort of the noble Lord, and for my own comfort, that all our words were not completely wasted.
The objects of the Bill, as your Lordships know, are really twofold. There is, first of all, the tidying up of the chaos in which the weights and measures law is at the present time. As an instance of how involved is this tidying up, your Lordships may have noticed that the date of the earliest of the Acts of which we repeal portions is 1796. We go back as far as that in our tidying up. That was the Hay and Straw Act, 1796. We are taking away certain sections of that Act. The other, and perhaps to many people more important, aspect of the Bill is that it is a more necessary part of consumer protection. Probably it is the part that ought to be dealt with first in legislation before other consumer protection legislation comes forward. That is just speaking generally.
I was in some doubt how to deal with this Second Reading. It is a long and complicated Bill, and one normally goes into great detail in describing the Bill. But your Lordships have had all this before—although, of course, I am entirely in the hands of the House in this matter. Unless any of your Lordships interrupts me, I intend—I think this should be adequate, although it will take some time, even in this form—to deal with this Bill Part by Part instead of clause by clause, referring to certain clauses in any case, because I think they ought to be referred to, but principally referring to changes which have taken place since the last Bill was before your Lordships. I hope that that will meet your Lordships' wishes. It will certainly curtail some of my discussion, though not, of course,
810
necessarily on other points that noble Lords wish to raise.
Part I of the Bill deals with the basic units of weights and measures—the pound, yard, kilogramme and metre—from which all others are derived. Hitherto, the yard and the pound have been defined by reference to pieces of metal, the Imperial Standards, as they are called, which have been subject to minute changes over the years. Now, for the first time, the yard and the pound are defined by reference to the metre and the kilogramme, thus establishing a constant mathematical relationship between imperial and metric units. They involve very slight changes in the value of the yard and the pound, changes to which I hope your Lordships will not object. (The yard will be one ten-thousandth of an inch longer and the pound one-thousandth of a grain lighter.) But I do not think it is likely to worry your Lordships unduly. The Bill also provides for the maintenance and verification of physical standards representing these units both centrally by the Board of Trade and by the local authorities. Part I also sets up a Commission on Units and Standards of Measurement. The Commission's task is a purely scientific and technical one: it is to advise the Government on technical questions relating to the basic standards and on any changes needed in the definition by law of the units and standards, including new ones.
The only significant change since the earlier Bill was before your Lordships has been to define more precisely the tasks of the Commission on Units and Standards, and to ensure that any recommendation involving adding to or removing units in Schedule I will be subject to consultation with interests concerned, as well as to an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
Part II with its related Schedules (if I may, I will take those together) deals with those units and types of weighing and measuring equipment which are lawful for use for trade. It prescribes the units which may be used, and some obsolete units are to be abandoned. I am sure some schoolboys will regret it, but the rod, pole or perch will be done away with, and, after five years, the bushel, peck and pennyweight. Part II

811
also provides for Board of Trade approval and for local authority testing of equipment used for trade.
Now the changes in this Part of the Bill compared with the corresponding Bill last time. Clause 10(7) has been added to provide for a changeover to the use of metric units by pharmacists, whilst leaving doctors free to continue to prescribe in apothecaries' units. The Bill differs from the 1961 Bill in that all weighing and measuring equipment in use for trade—except where exempted specifically—will not have to be tested and stamped by an inspector, but only such classes as the Board prescribe under subsection (1) of Clause 11. Under existing law all weighing equipment and all measures have to be stamped, but only a few classes of measuring equipment, notably petrol pumps. The original Bill covered all the latter equipment; that is, the measuring equipment. It would not have been practicable to issue the regulations for inspectors' testing procedures within six months, and in any event it may not prove desirable to cover all the many different types in use in bulk transactions between manufacturers and processers. The intention is to cover by regulation under Clause 11 all those classes of equipment which are at present covered and then to consider, case by case, whether further classes of equipment should be brought in. This means, I think, that new processes coming in will have more flexibility.
Clause 14 now gives power—and these are further changes—to lay down by regulation the abbreviation of lawful units so as to protect the public from misleading abbreviations. Formerly, the permitted abbreviations were listed in a Schedule; which was the Fourth Schedule to the previous Bill and which has now disappeared. The revised procedure will give great flexibility. To meet criticism of Clause 16 in another place, it has been amended so as to provide a defence for an innocent employee—for example, a shop assistant in a grocery store—who unwittingly uses unjust weighing or measuring equipment.
Part III of the Bill deals with public weighing or measuring equipment, and it consolidates the various laws governing the provision by local authorities of
812
public weighbridges. Clause 20 deals with the offences in connection with public equipment. The law here has been amended, first, to ensure that purported as well as actual weighings are covered by the clause; secondly, to require the name and address of the person bringing an article for weighing only if the weighing takes place; and, finally, to extend from one year to two years the period for which records of public weighing and measuring must be kept. The first and third of these changes have been made in order to deal with particular cases of fraudulent practices which have come to our notice—for example, where a weight ticket was issued but no weighing had, in fact, taken place.
Part IV, being, with its Schedules, a very detailed part of the Bill, I must go into slightly greater detail. This deals with regulation of transactions in goods. It provides for the use in everyday trade of the units and equipment defined and controlled by earlier Parts of the Bill. Its basic purpose is to ensure that buyers are provided with the most accurate information possible about the quantity of goods they are buying. Thus, Schedules 4 to 8, which are related to this Part of the Bill, lay down requirements providing for the various ways in which the quantity of various specified products shall be brought to the notice of the customer. Part IV itself brings these requirements into effect and gives the Board of Trade power by order to extend or modify them, or to apply them to products not at present covered by the Schedules. The Board may make such orders only after consultation with the interests concerned and with the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
The Schedules, 4 to 8, cover a very wide range of foodstuffs, household products and all types of solid fuel. Buyers must be informed of the quantity of these products, but the detailed requirements vary for different commodities. The requirements may be to sell by weight or measure, to mark the quantity on the container of pre-packed goods, or to "make the weight known" in some other way. Wherever practicable, the Bill requires that the weight to be given shall be the net weight, and this is the case for all those non-food products (except for large packs of fertiliser) which are required to be marked with their weight. Very many foodstuffs must be

813
weighed net, or, if pre-packed, marked with their net weight; but this requirement would be impracticable for some goods; for example, meat, where, for hygienic reasons, it is necessary to weigh the goods on a piece of greaseproof paper, or for certain pre-packed foods, such as soft fruit, which are liable to heavy and unpredictable loss of weight by evaporation. These products, therefore, may be weighed gross with their container, provided that the container is within a specified limit. The Bill goes further with certain staple foodstuffs, and requires that they shall be pre-packed only in certain specified quantities, thus simplifying the shopper's task of comparing the value for money of different brands. These detailed requirements are to come into force two years after the passage of the Bill; of three years in the case of draught spirits.
Clearly, when a buyer knows how much he is buying, he must get the quantity and no less. This Part of the Bill includes, for the first time in national legislation, a general provision making it an offence to deliver short weight or measure. This is in Clause 24. There is also provision in Clause 23 for delivery notes to be given for a wide range of goods; and Clauses 25 to 28 provide defences and safeguards to traders in proceedings, if they have taken all proper steps to comply with the law.
My Lords, the main changes since last time are these. The powers in Clause 21 to make orders and regulations are somewhat extended. They now cover, for example, the sale of pre-packed goods from vending machines, and methods of calculating quantities for the purpose of the Bill; for example, the drained weight of fruit in a tin. Clause 33(1) and (3) have been added. Clause 33(1) deals with methods of sale by quantity and Clause 33(3) gives the Board power to provide by order (subject to Affirmative Resolution of Parliament) that for goods covered by the order a requirement to "make known" the weight of the goods may be satisfied by the retailer's providing weighing equipment for the customer to weigh the goods himself. The purpose of Clause 33(3) is to provide for the case of pre-packed foods—particularly fruit and vegetables—which lose weight by rapid and unpredictable evaporation, and for which it is not practicable, particularly in self-service
814
stores, to require the weight to be marked or the goods to be weighed by the shopkeeper.
On the commodity Schedules the changes include Schedule 4, which deals with food; the "do-it-yourself" weighing provision of Clause 33(3) is allowed for fresh fruit and vegetables only. Secondly, pre-packed meat is no longer required to be marked with weight—because of difficulties for New Zealand packers—but the weight must, of course, be made known to the buyers. Thirdly, horse meat has been dropped from the Schedule altogether, since very little is now sold for human consumption. Fourthly, pre-packed butter and fats, dry fruits and other goods in Part IX are to be marked with their net weight instead of either net or gross weight. Fifthly, dried fruit and vegetables, flour products and coffee powder have been added to the list of goods to be packed in specified amounts. Fruits and malt loaves and large shortbread are exempted. Mushrooms have now been included. Spirits may still be sold draught in one of three measures, one-quarter, one-fifth, or one-sixth gill—
LORD STONHAM: Shame!
LORD DERWENT: —but the seller must use one measure for all the four spirits covered, gin, rum, whisky, and, I know my noble friend Lord Jessel will be glad to hear, vodka.
Schedule 5, which deals with ballast, is now confined to sale and delivery and no longer covers carriage for reward as it did in the old Bill. Schedule 6 deals with solid fuel. First, 1¼ cwt. is permitted as one of the specified weights in which solid fuel may be bagged, provided that no other size is carried on the same vehicle. If coalmen are willing to carry 1¼ cwt. bags, as they are in certain parts of the country, they should not be prevented from doing so, especially in National Productivity Year. Secondly, securely closed packs of fuel of up to 60 lb. are exempted from requirement to pack in specified quantities, to enable customers to buy and carry away conveniently-sized packs from shops and machines. Thirdly, provision to allow coal distribution by new methods in specially designed vehicles—the "autobagger"—which carry the coal in bulk and weigh

815
it at the customer's door. Fourthly, miners' concessionary coal is now exempted from the need to bag in specified amounts.
Schedule 7 deals with miscellaneous goods. First, perfumery and toilet preparations are now covered, which follows an undertaking given last time in this House. Secondly, tobacco is now excluded. Thirdly, anti-freeze, linseed oil and aerosols are now covered. Fourthly, nails may now be sold by count as well as by weight. Schedule 8 is now limited to mixtures wholly or mainly composed of scheduled goods, instead of relating to mixtures containing scheduled goods, which was the old wording. So much for Part IV.
Part V is concerned with the local administration of these provisions. Enforcement of weights and measures law will continue to be, as in the past, a matter for local authorities. The Bill provides for changes in the distribution of weights and measures functions among local authorities in view of population changes since the last century. In England and Wales the weights and measures authorities will be counties and county boroughs; non-county boroughs and urban districts with a population of over 60,000, if they wish; and smaller non-county boroughs and urban districts—and rural districts of any size—if the Board of Trade agrees. Non-county boroughs which are already weights and measures authorities may continue for a period. In London the existing weights and measures authorities will remain until changed by a Board of Trade order. In Scotland the existing pattern will continue.
As regards the changes in this Part, first of all Clause 34 has been altered so as to allow rural district councils (regardless of population) to apply to the Board of Trade for the exercise of weights and measures functions. Clause 35 has been altered to give the Board power to designate by order (subject to annulment by Parliament) the weights and measures authorities in the Greater London Area. In another place my right honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that it is the Government's intention to give the weights and measures function to the London boroughs, if the amalgamations proposed in the London Government Bill go through as planned.
816
Part VI deals with miscellaneous and general. This Part covers various matters such as powers of inspectors, offences, prosecutions and penalties, transitional arrangements about bread and milk—perhaps, for the sake of clarity I had better say milk and bread—the application of parts of the Bill to Northern Ireland, procedure on orders and regulations, interpretation, the repeal of existing national and local legislation and the date of operation of the Bill. The changes in this Part have been Clause 62(1), which allows the continued use in non-retail trade of certain customary units of quantity not in Schedule 1: for example the Petrograd standard which is used in the wholesale timber trade, or the pennyweight, after this is removed from Schedule 1. The other change in this Part is in Clause 61 which extends the existing law on bread and milk, which would otherwise expire in January, 1965, until the bread and milk Schedules come into force two years after the Bill's enactment.
That is the general description of the Bill. Your Lordships know its purpose. The most disagreements we are likely to have will probably be Committee disagreements; they may of course, be extensive. This Bill is necessary. It will tidy up the law and it will indeed be a protection to the consumer. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Derwent.)
3.30 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for his lucid statement of what is in this Bill and the ways in which it differs from the old Bill. I must confess that the celerity with which he delivered his brief will not embarrass those who are familiar with the old Bill, but may at least have given some difficulty to those who had not yet read the Bill; but I congratulate him on an extremely useful statement which we shall study with interest. I personally—I am sure he will agree—welcome the fact that we have a new team on the Government side to deal with this Bill; not that we had any complaint about the former noble team, but we shall have the particular advantage on this occasion that at various times we shall be able to quote in aid the views which were expressed on

817
the old Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and I am sure that will greatly help in convincing your Lordships if any small disagreement should arise.
We also are very glad to note that the list of speakers to-day on this very important Bill is to be graced by the speeches of two Ministers, and therefore it is with some regret that we learn that Back Bench support on the Government side is left entirely in the capable hands of the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, to whom we are frequently grateful for filling this kind of gap because he always examines measures objectively and gives original comments on the matters to be discussed. I must, however, confess it sometimes puzzles me that when we are discussing Central Africa or Rhodesia or Kenya noble Lords opposite rally round in tremendous numbers—they even fly to this Chamber from distant parts to take part in the discussion; but when we have a subject such as we are discussing to-day, which is of immediate and important concern to all the citizens in this country, then we are not favoured with the same measure of influential advice.
Despite a number of criticisms, and the many further improvements we shall strive to make in it, the Opposition very warmly welcome and support this Bill. Indeed, it is one of our major criticisms of the Government that it has taken over thirteen years and three Bills to bring us in sight of the realisation of the major recommendations of the Hodgson Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has mentioned, and as he and I recall with some nostalgia, because we spent twelve Parliamentary days and many long nights on it, there was the first Bill—and fortunately, as he has said, and indeed I agree, the work was not wasted because all the improvements we then made are in fact still in the present Bill. The two noble Lords who then presided on the Government Bench are now doing other work. But it is still the case that, under the new Bill, the fishmonger who fillets your fish will not be required to pack the bones with the fillets or to make out a bill showing the weights before and after.
We failed to convince on the previous occasion when we applied the same arguments to poultry, but obviously over the years our words have been weighed and
818
not found wanting, because the poulterer who eviscerates your poultry will not now by law be required to put the entrails back on pain of making out two weight tickets. It is also conceded that through a transparent wrapper the housewife is able readily to count six eggs or eight tomatoes. These apparently trifling points—and there are many which we corrected in the old Bill—are not unimportant to traders; they are important to them. On the other hand, in our consideration of this Bill we must bear in mind that, while we strive to give the consumer every possible protection, it is scarcely less our duty to ensure that the regulations are necessary, reasonable and capable of practical application. It is no service to the housewife to impose theoretical safeguards which increase the price beyond what she can afford or which make it impossible to continue a service which the retailer is willing to give and the housewife anxious to receive.
The Bill on which we laboured was dropped. Its successor was stillborn, published but not discussed. And now we have the third attempt, which has been the subject of considerable discussion and some improvement in another place. We on this side of your Lordships' House regard it as our first priority to get this measure on the Statute Book and we shall do all we can to assist in its progress. But as it may well be decades before further similar legislation can be considered by Parliament, we want this Bill to be as good and as forward looking as we can make it. We still think it is capable of improvement in many ways and we shall have quite a number of what we regard as constructive suggestions to put forward at Committee stage; and on a much smaller number of quite important points we shall endeavour to convince the Government that decisions they have made in another place are the wrong decisions.
We regard this—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, made it clear that the Government also regard it—as a major Bill which provides an important part, but only a part, of the total service of consumer protection and advice that we want to build up. We in fact see this as a new service in this country, unifying and developing naturally out of existing services, which must, of course,

819
be strengthened and augmented. But we in fact look ahead to a complete system of consumer protection based on the local authorities, who will administer it in a democratic way; and, so far as this Bill is concerned, the main instrument in this field will, in our view, be the weights and measures inspectorate.
Whether the right size of the unit of weights and measures inspectorate has been chosen so far in this Bill is something we can discuss at a later stage, together with the duties, status and prospects of inspectors. But, in any case, I personally visualise the weights and measures inspector developing into a sort of weights and measures Ombudsman, and his office developing into a clearing house for consumers' complaints and inquiries. Therefore, if the Bill is to operate in a matter in which I believe we all intend, immediate action will have to be taken to train a substantial number of additional inspectors. We are placing on their shoulders four entirely new additional groups of duties, every one of which involves a substantial volume of work; and there are ten other groups of duties where their work will be greatly extended. Obviously, the machine will become hopelessly overloaded and the Act almost a dead letter, unless enough inspectors are available for the efficient discharge of their responsibilities.
Sometimes I think, modestly, that the best we and some Governments can hope to achieve is not to make matters worse, and I think that is particularly the case in measures of this kind. Whereas we may remember gravely, learnedly and passionately discussing improvements, and we see a Bill receive the Royal Assent and go on the Statute Book, and we say "Ah, all that is a job of work we have done," how often did we sit back and think about the much greater amount of work that we had given to other people to work and pay for, and what good it does? I am quite sure that this is an important and invaluable Bill. But that will be true only if we provide the means for it to be carried out and administered. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that this point should be made.
Estimates vary, but it seems to me that by the time the clauses of this Bill become operative we shall need at least one-third more inspectors than the number we have now. I hope that, if
820
not to-day, at some future stage during our discussion of the Bill, the Government will say what are their plans for meeting this need. We do not want to repeat the probation officers' pattern, where, despite the increasing duties that we heaped constantly upon them, it took us literally years to persuade the Government to agree to reasonable salary scales to facilitate the recruitment of the necessary additional officers.
In some cases we on this side of your Lordships' House will urge the retention by the inspectorate of duties which the Government, in the Bill as it stands at present, wish to take from them. A notable example of this is in the sales of fuel. For example, the sales of logs by weight are little more than a ramp; yet the Bill's provisions apply only to sales up to half a ton in weight. I was looking over the weekend at particulars of the recent weighings of logs on one public weighbridge, and out of 145 loads only one was under half a ton and thus would be subject to the provisions of this Bill, and the other 144 loads would all have been exempt. Yet I know of quite a number of prosecutions under other Acts which show frequent examples of four or five cwt. being sold as one ton, and of two tons being delivered and five tons charged for. It would be quite wrong if we let this Bill go from us without taking care of such things.
We shall also press the Government to reverse their present decision to withdraw the inspectors' present powers to stop coal delivery lorries and test the weight of sacks offered for domestic sales. This relates to a cruel fraud, practised usually against the poorest people who buy their coal only a sack at a time. It is a fraud to which the trader is usually not a party—indeed, a fraud of which he has no knowledge; and, as on so many occasions in this Bill, the Amendments we shall press will be designed for the protection of honest traders as much as for the protection of trusting consumers. It is indeed astounding that in this particular section, and in a Bill expressly designed to protect the consumer, the Government should wish to sweep away valuable legislation which has been built up painfully and expensively by local authorities during the last hundred years for the protection of the local citizenry against fraud.

821
I think that the Government have also blundered over the question of the net weight of pre-packed fruit and vegetables. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, will remember that on at least a dozen occasions I raised this question—he probably thought ad nauseam; and the burden of the constant advice that I gave was that the only marking for pre-packed vegetables and fruit which would be practicable for the producer and at the same time fair to the grower and to the retailer, was a net weight at the time of packing, and I urged constantly that the inspection should be at the packing end, which would be much cheaper and much more efficient. The Government, however, did not accept my arguments then, and they have not accepted them now. They have in fact adopted what I regard as this fantastic suggestion, to which Lord Derwent referred, that these goods should be unmarked, but that retailers should provide a scale on which the housewife should be able to weigh her strawberries or her pre-packed mushrooms or her pre-packed vegetables, or what-have-you.
Just imagine the young housewife going through the self-service store, with little Johnny in one hand and a wire basket in the other, and having to halt at the stand with her punnets of strawberries, and then to let go of little Johnny and of her wire basket, and then herself weigh the punnet to see what the weight of the fruit is. I notice that your Lordships smile. It is, of course, laughable. We are a gathering of grave and sober men and women of judgment. There has been a much larger gathering of grave and sober men and women of judgment in another place, and no doubt the Civil Service have put their heads together before this. But we are asked to consider this as a proper, logical, sensible way of protecting the consumer. The Government's way of doing it is no protection whatsoever. It merely provides a convenient method for the trader to evade the basic provision of the Bill, that fruit and vegetables should be sold by net weight. It is something which I submit is quite intolerable in fact in this section the so-called "housewives' charter" bluntly tells the housewife to protect herself if she can. Quite obviously she cannot by this means. All this has arisen because the Government have run away
822
from this difficult problem. The problem—and it applies to fresh fruit and vegetables far more than any other commodity I can think of—is that in a short space of time these commodities lose by evaporation a considerable portion of their weight.
I do not in any way budge from the figures which I have quoted before, and which were requoted in this House quite recently by the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald. One cannot, in my submission, insist that the packers should apply a net weight to the package, because owing to the particular humidity at the time and the length of time between packing and sale, both being impossible to forecast, the variation would be beyond the limits of tolerance allowed by this Bill. In this field an actual unqualified net weight is impracticable and puts impossible burdens on the packer and retailer. The Government suggestion, while giving carte blanche to the packers and retailers, gives no protection at all to the housewife. While I do not budge, and shall not budge, from what I have said before, we shall press again for this kind of sensible arrangement which we asked for in the old Bill.
I cannot understand the stand of the Government here when, as a result of our previous discussions, they agreed to net weight markings on other goods, like detergents, which lose weight by evaporation. Mention of detergents reminds me that we are still far from satisfied that the Bill, as it stands, will prevent deliberately deceptive packaging. It should not be necessary for the firm which sells its detergent in a smaller package to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds to advertise the fact that their smaller package contains much more detergent than a much larger package. It would be much better if the detergent manufacturers played fair by the consumer, all saved money, sold their goods at a lower price and, indeed, made a donation to the Consumers' Advisory Council so that it could function properly, instead of struggling along on a miserable pittance provided by the Government. It is a "bit much" to suggest that this Council, in addition to carrying out the manifold important functions which were suggested by the Molony Committee, should also be expected to advise the Government on

823
weights and measures matters. It will have neither the personnel nor the "know-how", as I am sure my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry will clearly demonstrate when she comes to make her speech.
Another point on which we shall insist before this Bill leaves us is that the wholesalers must sell fish to retailers by net weight. The Government reasoning on this point has been quite remarkable. In January, 1961, for example, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, told us that the trade was virtually all conducted by net weight; and from that he reasoned that it was right for the Bill to say that transactions should be by gross weight. But in February of this year, in another place, Mr. Denzil Freeth indicated that not enough sales were made by net weight, and thus it was right for the Bill to say that transactions should be by gross weight. As they drew the same conclusions from contradictory facts, it is fair to conclude that they started from the conclusion and worked back to the facts. It is another example where, if I may say so, the Government seem to have forgotten that, "it ain't what you don't know that causes the trouble, but what you do know what ain't so". No doubt we shall have the opportunity to point that out to them at a later stage. We shall ask for a discussion on the basis of equity and true facts, and will even provide for the odd place where there is no weighing machine for fish.
Among many other improvements we shall seek will be the removal of the reproach that it will be possible for an Englishman to order a drink measuring one-sixth of a gill—which the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, once described as "no more than a dirty glass". We shall seek to allay the anxiety of precision instrument makers—and I think this may be a new point—who do not share the equanimity of most of us in regard to the increase in the length of the standard yard by one 8,000th part of an inch. This is a point which is likely to cause a difficulty with precision instrument makers. We shall also seek to demolish what we regard as the absurd suggestion that it will be possible to comply with the Bill's requirements in respect to the weight of loose sliced bread. There are many more things we can raise at the appro-
824
priate time, and I hope we shall do so constructively and usefully.
This is a good, important and necessary Bill, but I am sure that before the end of this debate your Lordships will be convinced that it can be a much better Bill. We shall table constructive Amendments and support them with ascertained facts and sound arguments. If the noble Lords opposite are in a position to base their decisions on those arguments, we shall together, in the next few weeks, do a good job for consumers and honest traders.
4.57 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, yesterday evening I spent a long time reading the Second Reading speeches in the debate in your Lordships' House in November, 1960. I must confess that the more I read of this Bill the more complicated it sounded to me, as a layman; but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that the most important thing is to get it on to the Statute Book, with improvements as necessary. I should like to thank Lord Stonham for the kind references he made to me in regard to the Second Reading debate. It may well be that when the Bill reaches its Committee stage my noble friends will have Amendments to put forward, and many of them are far more knowledgeable than I on this matter of weights and measures. As has been mentioned, the original Bill fell by the wayside because there was not time in the other place for discussion, but this time there seems an excellent chance that the Bill will get on the Statute Book before the end of the Session.
I should like to confine my specific remarks to three things: fruit and vegetables, washing powders, and cereals. So far as washing powders are concerned, I seem to remember that on the Second Reading of the last Bill my remarks attracted some attention from some sections of the Press; but I may say that they were taken completely out of context. My point now, as it was then, is that it is very difficult to sell washing powders specifically by net weight, because of condensation in the packets. I have checked this with a number of grocers and they all endorse those remarks. But what concerns not only me but many people is the surfeit of free gifts which now seem to be put in with various commodities. Admittedly

825
these gifts probably weigh very little, but if only the weight corresponding to the value of the free gift could be made up—and I refer more specifically now to cereals—the general public would get a much better deal. These monster packets of detergent do not always give the marvellous value to the consumer which they are supposed to give.
I spent an hour last Saturday with my local greengrocer discussing fruit and vegetables. Here a great problem must arise, because the temperatures of the various greengrocers' shops must necessarily vary; so must the length of time in which vegetables and fruit remain on the counters of shops. One may have a very wet Saturday or a very wet weekday, when the housewife may say that she will not venture out until the following day, in which case the fruit is sometimes left for sale until the following day. Here the difficulty arises of how the question of weight should be dealt with, especially in pre-packed containers, because more and more fruit and vegetables are now being sold pre-packed.
Reading one of the greengrocers' journals which I was given, I noticed reference to the fact that there is in Cardiff a shop which is divided into two sections: one sells fruit and vegetables entirely without packing; the other section is entirely pre-packed. So that the consumer has a choice. But so far as the weight is concerned in pre-packing, I should have thought that one way out of the difficulty would be to stipulate the average net weight when packed. I wonder whether the Government would consider that a reasonable compromise. I am not at all sure that the current proposals by the Government, as I understand them, are entirely satisfactory, although to have a specific net weight when packed to be sold to the consumer may present difficulties both to the wholesaler and to the retailer. But that is something which we can thresh out properly on the Committee stage.
Now, my Lards, I turn to cereals. There is a rather curious proposal here: that cereal biscuits under a certain weight need not be sold by net weight. Cereal biscuits, I should have thought, more or less weigh the same. There is "shredded wheat" and there are the "shreddies", but there is not a great deal of difference
826
in the weight—at least, I should not have thought so. I wonder whether that provision is entirely necessary. The local grocers and greengrocers are, on the whole, very honest traders, and they do their best to serve the public well. What this Bill needs to do—and I think, by and large, what it does—is to strike a reasonable balance between giving the shopkeeper a fairly rational run of the mill, so to speak, and allowing him reasonable leeway; and protecting the consumer, so far as can be done, without bureaucracy creeping in.
We are now in the era of the self-service store. Some people regret that, but I am the last person to decry the self-service store. But the small private store where one knew the shopkeeper, where one could discuss with him the best type of apple to buy, the cheapest type, and the best cut of meat, was appreciated very largely by the housewife; and also by the menfolk many of whom shop now, myself included, particularly on a Saturday morning. We learn to know these people and to go by their advice. But in the self-service stores one cannot quite get this service. Practically everything is pre-packed which makes it easier for the housewife, but I should have thought that at least some of the nutritive value is lost. However, we must move with the times and accept things as they are.
My Lords, may I turn now to another point which was discussed when the last Bill came before Parliament? That is, this question of fruit in tins. It is again mentioned in this Bill, but too many tins contain mostly juice and no fruit. Perhaps on the Committee stage we can discuss this matter further.
LORD STONHAM: You can count on that.
LORD AUCKLAND: But this is a Second Reading debate and it is not an opportunity to make long specific speeches. The Bill in itself is welcome. As has been said, improvements have been made in another place. When the earlier Bill left this House in 1961 it was a greatly improved Bill, and now comes our opportunity to improve it still more. But the Bill as a whole has been sensibly drafted; its provisions are in the main reasonable, and from these benches certainly we give it wholeheartedly a Second Reading.
4.10 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY:
My Lords, the Molony Committee spoke of the monumental delay which characterised the treatment of the Hodgson Committee Report, and I should hope, as a comparative newcomer to this House, that this delay is perhaps at last reaching an end. As we all know, the Hodgson Committee was set up in 1948 to review existing legislation about weights and measures, and produced its Report two years later. But, again, it was not until the autumn of 1960 that a Bill incorporating the main recommendations was produced. This was before I had the privilege of coming to this House, but I then followed with much admiration the detailed and knowledgeable work of my noble friends here. In fact, as has already been said, this was so detailed and so excellent that, after being heavily amended, the Bill was withdrawn in the summer of 1961 when it had become evident to the Government that there was no chance of its becoming law that Session.
I should like, if I may, to pay tribute to the work of my noble friends, and to quote what was said by the President of the Board of Trade when he moved the Second Reading in another place on November 12 last. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 667, col. 33]:
"I should like to say straight away that consideration of the earlier Bill in another place resulted in many improvements in the Committee stage there and I should like to place on record my appreciation of those who did so much to improve the Bill."
My Lords, I am not quite as enthusiastic as those noble Lords who have preceded me in this debate. In fact, I find myself rather in accord with the feelings which were expressed by Mr. George Darling when speaking on Second Reading from the Opposition Front Bench in another place, when he said that there had been many kind promises and two false starts, but that now, seeing the promised Bill, he welcomed it, but with critical misgivings. It seems to me, looking generally at the Bill, that, broadly, it can be divided into three parts, the first part being concerned with securing uniformity of administration and, therefore, mainly of interest to local authorities and the 850 inspectors who enforce the law at present; the second part being related to permitted stan-
828
dards of measurement; and the third part being that which will most interest the general public.
We have a long tradition of British legislation to ensure that the consumer gets fair weight for his money, but I think the whole House would agree with me that we are nowadays faced with the fact that much of this is obsolete because of the growth of pre-packaging and the tendency to sell goods by the package rather than by number or weight. I hope the Minister of State would not differ front me (and I do not think he would) if I said that the object of this new Bill is to ensure that the number or weight of the contents is set out on the package and that the consumer is given a fair chance of knowing what he is paying for and of comparing one price with another.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, if I may just interrupt the noble Lady, I would add "what he is paying for in quantity", of course. I must get that clear.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: Quite right. Looking at the definition given by the President of the Board of Trade in another place, I should think there is not much between us on this aspect. There is one further quotation which I should like to give the House, and that is the broad summary by the President of the Board of Trade on Second Reading, at column 33:
"The subject of the Bill is technical, and its details are necessarily complicated, but in its application it is right down to earth. It seeks to bring together and modernise a great mass of out-of-date legislation and to give the consumer much better protection than present law provides. It concerns any of us who buy or sell anything—and even those who get their shopping done for them. This is a Bill which has something for everyone."
I think we should all wish to be sure that the application is "right down to earth", and that we should agree that sometimes this is one of the most difficult things to achieve, certainly by legislators.
To-day I want to look at two main aspects in this connection and two important matters which arise from the Bill. As one of the previous speakers has said, in a Bill of this nature it is difficult not to make Committee points rather than Second Reading ones, but

829
I will try in that respect. Speaking generally, there seem to be few major alterations in this Bill, now that it has passed all its stages in another place. This was my opinion at the end of the Committee stage—and I have all the reports of the Committee stages here. I agree with Mr. Darling when he said that the main Opposition complaint against the Bill was that in many important aspects it was too much concerned to protect existing trade practices, even when those practices ran counter to the basic principles of the Bill. I do not know what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will say to this, but on reading through very carefully the Government's objections to many of the Amendments put forward during the Committee stage by the Opposition in another place I wonder whether the Board of Trade are not basing their arguments on opinions taken some twelve or thirteen years ago, when the Hodgson Committee was set up, because it has been on the files since then, and it seems to me that many of the objections put forward by the Government are better suited to retailing and horticulture then than to-day. I do not think that the Government realise that we now have retailers and horticulturists keenly alive to modern ideas and not nearly as antagonistic to progress as the Government imagine.
There are many comments that have come to me from consumer organisations and from the general public, knowing that I am interested in the consumer. I have been told, time and time again, that it seems that this is a traders' Bill, and I pass that comment over to the noble Earl. I think it is a useful one to note. Many people who have talked to me consider some of the omissions regrettable and one major inclusion—the wrapper allowance principle—to be quite simply an error. I should like to ask the noble Earl who is going to reply whether he can tell us why this wrapper allowance principle has been included.
Another general point which is troubling consumer bodies is the absence of anything definite in the Bill about advising the President of the Board of Trade on what the views of the general public are on weights and measures matters. On the original, No. I Bill suggestions were put forward for an advisory council, and, as the Minister knows, this was returned to when the
830
present Bill was in another place. But the Government turned down the idea, saying that it would be one of the functions of the National Consumer Council to keep the President of the Board of Trade informed on consumer views.
Here I should like to say something about this Consumer Council and why I feel that it will not be able to do what we have all hoped. I want to say something, first of all, in all sincerity, to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, opposite, because I think from what he had to say last week he does not quite understand the position in so far as I am concerned. He was not a Member of Parliament during the ten years when I was fighting this battle in another place. During those ten years in opposition against the Party of the noble Lord I fought for the establishment of a Consumer Council. I found it very hard to believe, when at last the Government agreed to set up the Molony Committee in July, 1959, that there had been a change of heart. I found it very difficult to believe because, aften ten years of going one way, such a sudden change of direction was a little difficult to understand, unless one assumed it was because of the pressure of public opinion and the advent of a General Election. Even feeling that, I tried not to take up too strong a position in my own mind but to wait and see whether really and truly the Government had had a change of heart.
I think the noble Lord would do me the justice to say that in the debate which we had in this House on November 14 last I went out of my way to say that I thought this Council must be made to work, if possible. I was anxious that it should work, and I was waiting to see the future actions of the Government to try to decide for myself whether or not they really meant business. I want to try to explain to the noble Lord—I am not asking him to agree with me—why I think this Government do not wish the Consumer Council really and truly to be effective. I do not propose to argue the points—I know that can he done after Easter—but I should like to set them out. The first is, it took the Government eight months to persuade anybody to act as Chairman. The second is this important announcement was made in a written statement. It is quite contrary to the wishes of Parliament in either House that important policy decisions

831
should be announced by written statement thereby depriving Members of the opportunity of commenting on them at the normal time when statements would otherwise be made. I will come back to that, if I may, when I have outlined the seven points.
The third point is the matter of an honorarium—and I should merely like to quote to the noble Lord from Molony, on page 290, paragraph 882:
"The Chairman, particularly, will shoulder heavy and more or less continuous responsibilities and we consider he should be expected to devote half his time to the business of the Council. We recommend he should be paid about £3,000 per annum … "
Now I am going to leave out some words because they refer to the members of the Council and the last sentence relates to the previous quotation:
"We think that the independence and status of the Council which we deem all important would be enhanced by the salary arrangements we propose."
I do not believe that the payment of an honorarium—and I am not concerned with the amount of the honorarium—is likely in people's minds to convince them that the Chairman of the Council is being expected by the Government to devote enough time to the work of the Council.
The fourth point is the appointment of a civil servant as Director. The noble Lord, when he replied to me the other day, implied that this really was in accordance with what Molony has suggested. With respect, I cannot see how the noble Lord can draw the conclusion that Molony recommended that the Director should be an undersecretary, seconded from the Government Department with which the Council will have to deal. If I might bring it to the noble Lord's attention, he quoted to me, as a basis for that fact, what Molony said:
"Our conception of his position can best be expressed by proposing that he should be styled Director rather than Secretary and should normally expect to contact Government Departments at the Under-Secretary level."
Now, by no stretch of the imagination, can that be construed as saying that he should be an under-secretary.
The fifth point is the suggestion that the Director should be a member of the Consumer Council. I raised this point
832
with the noble Lord last week, and I told him—I do not remember the exact words—that this was most unusual or quite extraordinary. Since I asked the noble Lord this Question, I have this week-end asked a great many people (and I believe all of them, without exception, were strong supporters of the Party of the noble Lord; and many of them were directors of industrial organisations); and not one of those people—and I asked them again this morning—had been able to give one example where a paid director was a member of the council of which he is the paid servant. This Government are in power and if they wish to make a change, obviously they are quite entitled to do so; but the point I am making is that if something quite unusual or extraordinary is done it will be better to say, "We are making a change, and we are doing this", than to imply that it is quite customary or that this Consumer Council is different from any other body—which it is not.
On the sixth point, I should like to ask whether it is the intention of the Government that the members of the secretariat should be civil servants or should be seconded from the Board of Trade; and I raise this matter because my information is that the one point on which the Government were quite decided as long ago as last summer was that the Director of the Consumer Council should be a seconded civil servant, and it seems to me that if we are to have a secretariat of civil servants this will become an appendage of the Board of Trade. On the seventh point, and on a lighter touch—although I do not feel very light-hearted about this—I gather that the Consumer Council is to be housed at Cornwall Terrace, which is the late home of the lamented Horticultural Marketing Council; and that I should not regard as a happy augury.
My Lords, those are the seven points. I do not ask the Minister to agree with them, but because of those points I find myself unable to feel that the Government really mean business on this particular matter. May I come back to what happened earlier this afternoon?—because I have no option but to do this. I am relatively new to this House, and I was quite shocked this afternoon at Question Time and I did not know what to say,

833
because if such an Answer had been given to such a Question in another place this would have been called contempt of the House.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, might I ask, as the noble Baroness and I were in another place together, whether she would think the speech she is now making—and as she knows, I am interested in the points she is putting forward—would be in order on Second Reading of this Bill in another place?
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY:
Yes, they would, because I have based all my remarks—and I hope the noble Lady heard me, because I know she has not made this interruption in a spirit of animosity—on the way the President of the Board of Trade, in the Second Reading debate [col. 35] said that the Consumer Council would be in a position to keep him informed on consumer views on weights and measures, and I am giving my reasons why I think they would not be in that position. I know that the Rules in this House are more lax, but I should be in order in another place. I was careful to give that sentence first.
To come back to this afternoon. It is not easy for a Back Bencher, when confronted with a definite refusal by the Government to make a statement, to decide what to do; and I think the only thing I can do is to come back now—for the benefit of the noble Lady opposite—to the written statement made by the Government on March 26 last concerning the appointment of the Chairman of the Consumer Council. I am back to the question which I had hoped would be settled this afternoon, as to why and how incorrect information was given to the Press—and the most reputable Press. We all know that mistakes can be made. I think it is a good thing if it can be admitted: then everybody can leave the matter and get on. I think this is quite serious.
I asked the Government to-day whether, in view of the further information which had been given to them about this matter, they would make a statement concerning the details given orally to the Press on Tuesday, March 26 last, when the appointment of the Chairman of the Consumer Council was announced. I should be glad if I could have the attention of the Front Bench opposite; it is most tiresome when everybody is
834
muttering. The information I gave to the Government, and which I thought was serious, I would now propose to quote. This information was from the Daily Telegraph of April 3. The heading at the top was "Misleading the Lords." The quotation is as follows:
"The present uneasy relationship between the Government and the newspapers will not he improved by a passage in yesterday's Hansard.
"Lord Derwent, Minister of State, Board of Trade, is stated as saying that, 'contrary to reports which have appeared in the Press', the Government have accepted the Molony Committee's recommendation to pay members of the Consumer Council £500 a year.
"As if to rub it in, he also said there was nothing to give a contrary impression
'in the information made available by the Board of Trade, whether written or oral.'
"Lord Derwent's Ministerial experience is not great but he must surely have known that both the information and the subsequent correction came from the Government. To talk as if the Board of Trade were a separate entity is foolish.
"Perhaps Mr. Macmillan should remind some of his colleagues that, while it is human to err, to mislead is intolerable."
I sent that information to the Government. I tabled a Question, and asked them, in view of this report, whether they would make a further statement. Noble Lords who were present to-day will have heard the answer I got from the Lord President. He is the Lord President and I am a Back Bencher, but I think it was a shocking answer. I think it showed a supreme contempt for the rights of this House. And I have given in the details because I hope that when this is reported we may get a proper statement on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, himself may well have made a mistake last week and not replied very wisely. It would have been much better if he had got up to-day and said so, and then we would have left the matter.
Now I come to the first of the two main aspects of the Bill at which I want to look. The first is a problem of net weight. Here I should like to ask the Minister three questions. I know that the Minister of State is not going to reply, but if the noble Earl who is could help me on these matters I should be glad. (1) Is it necessary to extend the principle of selling pre-packed goods by gross weight—that is, by weight including wrapper? The Government are extending this principle. (2) Is it correct that in the United States

835
and in many other countries, including countries in the Commonwealth, the net weight has to be given? And that the Hodgson Committee recommended this, with only limited exceptions, and that the Institute of Weights and Measures are of the same opinion? (3) Why do the Government take a contrary view on this matter? I hope that the noble Lord has taken these points down, because they are important.
Apart from this indication of net weight, I feel that what we want is a wider power, because even if we get an indication of net weight I do not think it will be enough. It is one aspect of deceptive packaging. What about the excessive size of toothpaste cartons and other cartons to which the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, has referred? And I gather that men are also dissatisfied with the cartons in which shaving cream is often packed. Though stating the net weight would often help, what is really needed is a regulation to prevent sharp tricks such as false size or deceitful design. This has been put to me strongly by consumer bodies, who feel that the Bill is too literal in its limitation to net weight. I should be glad to know what the Minister feels about that.
Logically this brings me to the second of my main aspects—that is, the problem of packaging. Obviously the problem of deceptive packaging will require close attention by the National Consumer Council, but I want to stress to-day that it is little use for the public to be alerted to the tricks of packaging if the Bill contains inadequate powers for dealing with this trouble. Consumer bodies tell me that the present clauses will not be adequate. Some of them go so far as to say that it is something of a job to decide just how deceptive packaging will be controlled under this Bill at all. I would ask the Minister: could we not have a more extended sale by prescribed quantities? The Hodgson Committee recommended this for a long list of goods. I understand that it will still be possible under this Bill for the producer to mark on package goods the weight and price, but to do it in such a way that it will be very difficult for the shopper to find out whether that package costs more than another product. I should be glad to know what the Minister feels about that point.
836
Concerning the actual size of the print in any marking for the shopper the Parliamentary Secretary said on Second Reading that under Clause 21(4) the Board of Trade has power by regulation to prescribe the manner in which this information will be given. Furthermore, as I am sure the Minister of State knows, he said that this power would be used. I can only assure the Minister that it needs to be, because it is practically impossible to see the tiny print on some packages.
There is one particular clause about which very strong representations have been made to me—I am sure that the Minister knows which it is: Clause 33. I should like to say something about this. The point has been put to me that in Clause 31(1)(a) the price as well as the quantity should be made known to the buyer, and so should the price per lb. These are important, and those of us who take an interest in consumer affairs think that they should be clearly written into the Bill. Subsection (3) of this clause is entirely unsatisfactory. As the noble Lord knows, before the Report stage in another place it meant that such things as poultry, fish, cheese, fresh fruit and vegetables were included; but on Report stage poultry, fish and cheese were removed, and we are now left with fresh fruit and vegetables. I do not think that many people realise how stupid this is.
We are now left with the position that fresh fruit and vegetables may be sold by price without any reference to weight, provided that the shop keeper puts up a notice stating that a scale is available for the customer's use. Although the notice may be readily seen, I assure your Lordships—and I do my own shopping—that probably it will be seldom read. Do your Lordships visualise the customer reading, finding out where the scales are and then weighing the goods? I would ask the Minister whether he thinks that in a busy shop that is a likely proposition. In fact, I go further and say that it is a negation of consumer protection. It is a long way from sale by weight, and a longer way still, and the inadequacy all the greater, when it is operated, as it will be, side by side with a prescription that the same goods, if not pre-packed, must be sold by weight.

837
I cannot see why fresh fruit and vegetables must be left out. It seems to me obvious that our marketing methods are too inefficient to provide an alternative. At least, that is the only reason I can think of. I would ask why inefficiency should be covered up in this way. Why cannot fresh fruit and vegetables, along with any other commodity, be sold by net weight? I would point out to the Minister that the suggestion was made in another place—and I agree with it—that if we said this had to be done, and gave the marketing authorities a specific period of time to arrange it, then they would find an answer. I believe that to-day the up-to-date horticultural marketing people would be only too glad to find an answer to this problem.
I now come to something which I think is important, and on which I wish to declare a personal interest. On Report stage in another place, an Amendment was discussed to Clause 48, to which my noble friend Lord Stonham has already referred, giving inspectors of weights and measures power, for the purposes of carrying out their duties under this Bill, to stop at all reasonable times a vehicle carrying solid fuel for sale or delivery to a purchaser. This suggestion kept cropping up in another place through all the stages. It was turned down by the Government as recently as March 25 last, on the Report stage. A great deal of comment and criticism has come my way on this matter. It has come because of a general interest in the consumer and because of the interest I now wish to declare as Chairman of the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council. That Coal Consumers' Council comprises representatives of consumers of solid fuel, of distributors (both private and co-operative traders) of the National Coal Board and of the Gas Council. Among the consumer representatives are included a chief inspector of weights and measures and a number of local authority representatives, several of whom are in close touch with their authorities' weights and measures inspectorates.
In this Council nobody is in favour of the course of action that the Government, up to now anyway, have said they intend to pursue—namely, to withdraw from inspectors the right, which they have had in the past, to stop vehicles. I think it may help the Minister—because I am hoping he may be able to look
838
sympathetically on this when the Bill goes to the Committee stage—if I were to say that one qualification felt was that it was certainly desirable that an inspector who is authorised to stop coal lorries in this way should have some means of identifying himself readily to the driver of a lorry travelling at normal speed.
The opinion of my Council, speaking generally over all this period of time, is that lorries should be compelled to stop for a duly authorised and clearly identified inspector, and I would put forward to the noble Lord two possible means of achieving this. As he knows, there is the procedure authorised by Section 224 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, under which a person authorised by a highway authority (not necessarily a policeman in uniform) may stop a vehicle for the purpose of having it weighed. For this purpose he uses a sign, authorised by the Ministry of Transport, which measures 20 inches by 30 inches and has on it the word "Stop" in red letters, four and a half inches high. These powers, as the Minister knows, are given for the purpose of checking overloaded vehicles rather than short-weight deliveries, but this does not affect the principle. Another method that is used, and which I thought might perhaps be useful to the Minister as background, relies on the fact that a weights and measures department's patrol vans, which may for example carry the crest of the local authority, are well known by appearance to coal dealers and their employees. Full regard has from time to time been paid by myself and by other people to the arguments put forward by the Government for the refusal of the Amendment put forward in another place. I hope, in view of what others and myself have said to-day—and perhaps I may call in aid the weight of opinion represented by a body like the Domestic Coal Consumers Council—that the Government will feel able to look again at this Amendment when we come to the Committee stage.
Now, my Lords, I want to conclude on one simple mundane matter, but it is one which affects millions of ordinary shoppers. I wonder if the Minister could tell me what is meant by "countable produce" in the context in which it is used in paragraph 3(1)(d), Part VII of Schedule 4, on page 73 of the Bill looked at this very hard, and I could

839
not make head or tail of it. Is it implied that when shoppers buy, to take a few examples, carrots, leeks, onions, greengages or tomatoes, they buy these by asking for so many?—because I have never been in a shop and asked for so many carrots, leeks or onions. This is a perfectly honest query. If it does not mean that you go in and buy these goods by number, then what does it mean? It is this sort of phraseology that brings us all into contempt by ordinary people outside who cannot make head or tail of it. While it is a small point, I should be glad if the noble Lord could help me by saying what is meant by "countable produce". I am glad that we have this Bill; I hope that it will be improved in Committee and I thank your Lordships for your patience.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I intervene for a brief moment to apologise to your Lordships for having made a misleading statement in the debate last Thursday in the House, when I said that two previous Weights and Measures Bills in this Parliament had been debated in your Lordships' House. In fact, only one Weights and Measures Bill has been debated in your Lordships' House, and I apologise for having made that misleading statement.
LORD DERWENT: It seemed like two!
4.46 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate this afternoon, and I can assure your Lordships that everything that has been said will be studied with great care. It was particularly pleasing to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, give such a welcome to this Bill, because it is a Bill which is going to tidy up, as it were, loose legislation and consolidate the situation for the future. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said that he was delighted to see a different team of people on the Front Bench, and would have great pleasure in quoting us against ourselves. If I may recollect my own contribution to the last Bill, which was before your Lordships two years ago, it consisted mainly of sitting on the Benches in wonder and amazement at the intelligence and wit of
840
noble Lords in understanding such a complicated Bill, and, indeed, thanking various forms of goodness that I was not involved in it. It is, therefore, slightly odd to feel the mantle of responsibility, even if it is only diminished responsibility, perching itself rather warily on my shoulders at the present time.
This is a Bill which will have a great deal of effect. After all, one experiences the effects of weights and measures in various forms almost every time one goes into a shop and every time one has anything to do with any form of business. But it is not necessarily appreciated how legislation comes about which assures the consumers' protection. I would state, as briefly as I can, that the Bill as it is relies totally on dealing with quantity, and in no respects does it deal (I think I am right in stating this categorically) with quality. There are virtually three steps in this legislation. The first is to provide a common language of weights and measures; the second is to ensure that that language is used by traders—and that is, of course, done by seeing that they have accurate and efficient equipment; and the third is to ensure that this information is passed on to the general public, so that the public themselves know exactly what they are buying. It also consolidates past legislation. I would emphasise again that it does not, as your Lordships know, deal with quality, because that was dealt with by the Molony Committee, and must be subject to separate legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has welcomed this Bill, and great note will be taken of all he has said. I would answer at least one point that he raised. He was rather worried about the powers of inspectors to stop vehicles—a point also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. It has been suggested that the Bill should give to weights and measures inspectors powers to stop lorries. These powers to stop vehicles are carefully circumscribed by road traffic legislation for reasons of road safety, particularly from the point of view of security from theft of vehicles and of loads, and also from the point of view of operating efficiency, because clearly it is going to involve a certain disruption of traffic if lorries are periodically stopped and removed from the roads to be weighed. The Road Traffic

841
Act, 1960, gives a general power to stop vehicles on the highway only to a police constable in uniform. This has been done for good reasons, apart from the dangers of hi-jacking which, unfortunately, seem to be rather on the increase. It is a difficult job to control traffic on the roads to-day, and those are the reasons why it has been considered up to now that it would be better not to involve weights and measures inspectors in the stopping of lorries and removing them to be weighed.
LORD STONHAM: Will the noble Earl allow me to interrupt? What we are objecting to is the fact that the Bill removes those powers to stop lorries which weights and measures inspectors now possess as civilians. It has been built up by legislation that they have that power, and the Bill will remove it. That is what we are objecting to.
EARL FERRERS: That is perfectly true, and if the noble Lord feels strongly on that lie can put down an Amendment later on. We are particularly grateful to the noble Lord for telling us exactly—or giving us an indication—of the lines which he will pursue on amending this Bill, because, obviously, it will assist us considerably.
Both he and the noble Baroness were concerned about this business of fruit and vegetable weighing and pre-packing. Certain goods, and particularly fruit and vegetables, are subject to loss of weight by evaporation. If they were to be marked with their net weight when pre-packed the only way of ensuring that this weight was accurate at the moment of sale would be to re-weigh the article. That is obviously not a sensible thing to do: it would be inconvenient, and very expensive. The alternative is to allow the goods to be unmarked, but to require that their gross weight be made known at the moment of sale. All retailers can then be required to make known the weight of these goods in the conventional manner, by passing them over a scale at the time of sale. That would be done in the customer's presence, and it would obviously involve a certain amount of inconvenience. But at least the customer would be able to know the weight at the moment he purchased the goods, as opposed to knowing the weight when they were pre-packed, from which a
842
certain amount may have been lost due to evaporation.
To allow for the special position of the self-service store, while ensuring that the customer has the weight of these things at the moment of sale, subsection (3) of Clause 33 gives power by order to provide that a requirement to make the weight known shall be satisfied if the retailer provides special weighing equipment which customers themselves may use. The Bill applies this provision to certain fresh fruit and vegetables in Part VII of Schedule 4 as if the Board have made such an order. These are the only goods to which the provision is applied. If the Board at some future date should consider it necessary to extend the provision to other goods, they will be enabled to do so by an Order requiring an Affirmative Resolution. While on this point of fruit and vegetables, the noble Lady raised a point with regard to the procedure (I think she said) in the United States. There, soft fruit may be sold by capacity as an alternative to net weight. We will go into the difficulties of selling soft fruit by net weight when the Committee stage of the Bill comes about. That is the only information I can give the noble Lady at the moment with regard to the weighing of vegetables or fruit in the United States.
The noble Baroness also made the point, as I believe did the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, about wrapper allowances. There is no doubt that net weight over as wide a field as possible is a desirable objective, but the Bill requires this over a wide range of goods. There are, of course, certain goods for which it is not practicable to demand that the net weight should be given. The Schedule allows gross weight in these cases for two main reasons: first, some goods are moist or sticky, and when they are sold loose over the counter it is hygienic and necessary that they should be weighed on some kind of wrapper—for instance, a piece of greaseproof paper. Examples of this are well known to your Lordships, such as meat, ham, butter, lard and so forth. Soft fruit, such as raspberries and strawberries, if sold loose, also need to be put in a bag or other container when weighed to prevent the scales from getting sticky. Greaseproof paper or a like container is in these cases allowed to be included in the weight,

843
because many shops selling these goods loose do not have weighing equipment which enables them to calculate the net weight accurately in those circumstances.
The second reason is that for some pre-packed goods there is again a serious problem of evaporation. Goods such as fresh vegetables and soft fruit, sausages, poultry and cheese, may lose weight rapidly and unpredictably by evaporation. More and more of these goods are being sold pre-packed; but unless or until the evaporation problem is solved—for instance, by new techniques in storage, or by the use of air-tight packing—goods will be liable to weight losses between packaging and sale and must, therefore, be weighed gross, including their container, at the time of sale.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, for his speech in which he gave the House the advantage of his careful study of cereals, fruit and household powders. All those points will be looked at with great care before the next stage of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, did not give the Bill quite the welcome that other noble Lords have given it. But she thought it entrenched existing trade practices—those were not quite her words, but that was the impression she gave. I should not have thought that that was a fair criticism of the Bill. She thought that possibly it was about twelve years old, as it relied on the Report of a past Committee. In fact, although in the main it may have relied on the Hodgson Committee, it has been the result of a Bill which came in front of your Lordships about two years ago, and has therefore been brought considerably more up to date. Of course, the object behind it is to protect the consumer while at the same time being fair to the trader and giving him certain rights of self-defence.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, may I just say something, for I know that the noble Earl wishes to be fair? What I said was, not that the Bill was twelve or thirteen years out of date but that I thought that some of the objections put forward by the Government to many of the Amendments put forward by the Opposition were some twelve or thirteen years out of date and were based on objections that were made at that time.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I see; but I am still working out where the objections are coming from or going to. But I am very grateful at least to the noble Lady for pointing that out, because she has cleared up a misapprehension in my mind. She did, however, take this opportunity of making a very violent—I should say, strong—statement about "her" Consumer Council, but I am quite convinced that she will not expect me to be drawn in on that.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I am sorry to keep getting up, but I should like to get this right. It was merely a statement, put forward very calmly, as to the various reasons for which I thought the Government did not really mean business with the Council, and it was put forward in a perfectly amicable spirit.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I did not mean to suggest that it was not amicably delivered, but the noble Lady is very persistent and does it with great charm. While she was making her speech she did rather remind me of a terrier with a rat in its mouth trying to extinguish its life; she did it so persistently. I should not like her to misconstrue that. I do not by any means wish to imply that the noble Lady is like a terrier, or the Government like a rat, but it was mainly the means of delivery which bore a similarity.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, does the noble Earl's statement mean that he now withdraws entirely the word "violent" and substitutes the word "persistent", which is surely a fairer word to use in connection with my noble friend's statement?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, that is perfectly true, but I thought that I had in fact removed the word "violent" after I said it because I did not quite mean to imply that. The noble Lady made a number of points, which I hope I have been able to answer in a certain degree with those made by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, opposite, and we shall take very careful note of all that has been said in the Second Reading debate. It is very difficult, as the noble Lady herself said, to take a Second Reading debate like this without involving oneself in points of detail.

845
We are grateful to the noble Lords who have taken part, and grateful for the welcome given to the Bill for the Opposition by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

OFFICES, SHOPS AND RAILWAY PREMISES BILL
5.4 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair.]
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after Clause 41 to insert the following new clause:
Special provisions as to London
".—(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section any premises to which section 29 of this Act applies which form part of a building from all parts of which means of escape in case of fire have been provided in accordance with the requirements of Part V of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act, 1939, and are maintained, shall be entitled to receive a fire certificate under the said section 29 and pending the receipt of the certificate no offence shall be deemed to be committed by reason of the employment of persons in any such premises in contravention of that section.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to any premises if since the means of escape were provided any action has been taken of which notice would, if a certificate under the said section 29 had been granted, have been required to be given to the appropriate authority under subsection (3) of section 30 of this Act."
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friends, I beg to move this Amendment. I would remind the Committee that we are still dealing with the question of fire provisions, particularly in regard to the certificates. I would also remind the Committee that Clause 29 lays it down that it shall be unlawful after the passing of this Act for the employment of certain people, either on the ground floor or upstairs, if inflammable materials are stored in the building. The procedure for granting these certificates is similar to that already in force under the Factories Act, 1961. That Act, however, makes special provision, in Section 44, for premises in respect of London.
The London County Council have already dealt with the means of escape from fire under the powers contained in Part V of the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act, 1939. In regard to other parts of the country, in particular, Scotland, other provisions are already in force and local authorities are inspecting. In fact, it may be said that in the case of London the standards required under various enactments are perhaps higher than those provided for in this Bill.
Since 1905, as I understand it, the London County Council have given approval for all new buildings, and therefore one can reasonably say that the vast majority of office or shop buildings in the London County Council area conform to the specification and are well within the requirements of this Bill. The purpose of this Amendment is really simplification. The whole burden of the Government case on the earlier stage of this Bill is that we should not do anything that will make the burden of the local authorities heavier than it will be. In this particular case we are endeavouring to lighten the position. We recognise that in the case of the London County Council area the provisions of this Bill are already in fact taking place.
If the Bill goes forward, a new certificate will, as I understand the position, be issued. I would put to the Government that, in the cause of simplicity, the buildings within the London County Council area should be exempted from the necessity of having a fire certificate issued under this Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, will recognise that I am one of the last to wish to see any exemptions from the provisions of this Bill. Yet I believe there is a case, in view of the fact that all these buildings are up to standard, and are carefully inspected and controlled by the London County Council, for relieving the authority of the duty of carrying out a fresh survey and a fresh issue of certificates. May I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, that if this Amendment were accepted it would considerably ease the position of the employers or the occupiers of these buildings? It would relieve them of the necessity of obtaining what is, in fact, a new fire certificate in place of the one which they have already been granted on satisfying the stringent requirements of the authority; and there does not appear to be any point in the

847
duplication of this requirement. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 41 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Shepherd.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON): I am not at the moment convinced that it would be practicable in this Bill to follow the procedure of the Factories Act, but I do not want this afternoon to recommend to your Lordships that you should not agree to this Amendment. I should like to have a little more time to consider the noble Lord's Amendment, and perhaps he would be good enough to withdraw it now and put it down again on Report.
LORD SHEPHERD: I must respond to that suggestion because I think it is very helpful. I know the noble Lord does not mean any more than he has said, but at least he has not turned me down flat, which has been most of my experience through the long period of this Bill, although the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, shakes his head. Of course it depends on the way one looks at some of the Government's replies. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 [Provisions with respect to buildings in single ownership]:
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON)THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON) moved, after subsection (7), to insert:
"(8) Section 22 of this Act (except so far as relating to operations or processes) shall, with the substitution, for references to the occupier of the premises, of references to the owner of the building, have effect in relation to a common part of a building to which this section applies, and to machinery, plant, equipment and appliances used in such a part, as it has effect in relation to premises to which this Act applies, and to machinery, plant, equipment and appliances used in such premises.
(9) Where the occupier of premises comprised in a building in England or Wales to which this section applies is the defendant to a complaint made under section 22 of this Act with respect to the premises on the ground specified in subsection (1)(a) or (b) of that section a copy of the summons issued in consequence of the making of the complaint
848
together with a notice stating that he will be entitled to appear at the hearing of the complaint shall he served on the owner of the building in like manner as a summons falling to be served on him is required to be served and he shall, if he appears at the hearing, be deemed to be a defendant to the complaint; and the powers of the court under section 55(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 shall be deemed to include power, whatever adjudication the court makes on the complaint, to order any of the parties to pay the whole or part of the costs of either or both of the others.
(10) Where the occupier of premises comprised in a building in Scotland to which this section applies is a defender in a summary application made under section 22 of this Act in respect of the premises on the ground specified in subsection (1)(a) or (b) of that section, a copy of the application together with notice of the place, date and time fixed for the hearing of it shall he served on the owner of the building and he shall thereafter be a party to the proceedings."
The noble Lord said: The object of the new subsection (8) on the Marshalled List is to enable the machinery of making a complaint under Clause 22 (that is, dangerous conditions and practices) to be applied to the common parts of buildings to which Clause 42 applies. In other words, this Amendment would enable an authority to make a complaint to a magistrates' court about the dangerous conditions of, for example, lifts or stairways, or a boiler in the common parts; and references to the owner of the building are substituted for references to the occupier of the premises. The subsection limits the procedure to paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 22(1), since the operations and processes mentioned in paragraph (c) are carried on only in the premises and not in the common parts.
The new subsection (9) provides that when a complaint is made by an enforcing authority under Clause 22 against the occupier of premises in a building to which Clause 42 applies a copy of the summons shall be served on the owner of the building, who may, if he wishes, appear at the court hearing. I think it is obvious that an owner will often have an interest in the matter, and it is only reasonable that he should be given the opportunity to appear at the hearing if he so wishes. This Amendment meets a suggestion made in the course of debate in another place. The new subsection (10) is merely an adaptation for Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 9, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Carrington.)
LORD CHAMPION: I think these new subsections are wholly welcome to us. The only question I would ask is: do they, where there are staircases, and so on, in common use, place the responsibility clearly on the owner, without any question of divided responsibility between him and the various occupiers?
LORD CARRINGTON: As I understand it the noble Lord is perfectly right. The onus in respect of the common parts of the premises is placed on the owner and not on the various occupiers.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON: There is an Amendment identical to No. 68, which is No. 72, and perhaps it would be convenient for me to refer to them both together. Subsection (6) of Clause 29 requires a fire certificate issued with respect to any premises to be kept in the premises so long as it is in force. In the case of buildings to which Clause 42 or Clause 43 applies, however, the fire certificate is sent to the owner of the building or the owner of the part of the building in which the premises are situated. Subsection (9) of Clause 42 and subsection (7) of Clause 43 provide that a copy of the fire certificate shall be sent to the occupier of the premises concerned. It is therefore necessary to adapt the requirements in Clause 29(6) to provide that the copy of the fire certificate shall be kept in premises comprised in buildings to which Clauses 42 and 43 apply. Generally speaking, the fire certificate itself will be kept by owners in their own offices, which may often be at a distance from the building which inspectors will be visiting for the purpose of enforcing the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 21, at end insert ("and section 29(6) of this Act shall apply to the copy instead of to the certificate").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 [Provisions with respect to buildings plurally owned]:
LORD CARRINGTON: This is an exactly similar Amendment to the one I have just moved, except that it relates
850
to Clause 43 and not to Clause 42. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 36, at end insert—
"(6) Section 22 of this Act (except so far as relating to operations or processes) shall, with the substitution, for references to the occupier of the premises, of references to the persons who, between them, own the building, have effect in relation to a common part of a building to which this section applies, and to machinery, plant, equipment and appliances used in such a part, as it has effect in relation to premises to which this Act applies, and to machinery, plant, equipment and appliances used in such premises.
(7) Where the occupier of premises comprised in a building in England or Wales to which this section applies is the defendant to a complaint made under section 22 of this Act with respect to the premises on the ground specified in subsection (1) (a) or (b) of that section a copy of the summons issued in consequence of the making of the complaint together with a notice stating that he will be entitled to appear at the hearing of the complaint shall be served on each of the persons who between them own the building in like manner as a summons falling to be served on him is required to be served and he shall, if he appears at the hearing be deemed to be a defendant to the complaint; and the powers of the court under section 55 (1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 shall he deemed to include power, whatever adjudication the court makes on the complaint, to order any of the parties to pay the whole or part of the costs of all or any of the others.
(8) Where the occupier of premises comprised in a building in Scotland to which this section applies is a defender in a summary application made under section 22 of this Act in respect of the premises on the ground specified in subsection (1) (a) or (b) of that section, a copy of the application together with notice of the place, date and time fixed for the hearing of it shall be served on each of the persons who between them own the building and they shall thereafter be parties to the proceedings."—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON: This is a paving Amendment for the next one, which perhaps I might discuss at the same time. Subsection (5) of Clause 29 states that a fire certificate issued with respect to any premises shall be sent to the occupier of the premises. Subsection (6) of Clause 43 provides that in the case of plurally owned buildings references to the occupier of the premises in the provisions relating to fire precautions shall be replaced by references to the persons who between them own the building. These two Amendments provide that in the case of buildings to which Clause 43 applies the fire certificate shall be sent to the person

851
who owns the part of the building where the premises are situated. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 39, after ("precautions") insert ("(a)").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 41, leave out from ("premises") to end of line 43 and insert—
("(b) for references to the occupier of the premises (except the reference in section 29(5)) there shall be substituted references to the persons who between them own the building; and
(c) for the reference in the said section 29(5) to the occupier of the premises there shall be substituted a reference to the person who owns the part of the building of which the premises consist.")—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON: This is consequential on Amendment No. 68. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 48, at end insert ("and section 29(6) of this Act shall apply to the copy instead of to the certificate ").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARRINGTON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 38, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45:
Power of the Minister to grant exemptions from certain requirements of the Act
45.—(1) The Minister may by order exempt premises of any class from all or any of the requirements imposed by the following provisions of this Act, namely, section 5(2) and sections 6, 9 and 10, in cases where, in his opinion, it would, by reason of special circumstances, be unreasonable to require compliance with the requirements or requirement from which exemption is granted.
(2) An exemption under this section may be granted unconditionally or subject to conditions and without limit of time or for a specified period.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "without limit
852
of time or" and to insert "shall be granted". The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move this Amendment, and with the Committee's permission I will also speak on Amendment No. 76, since they go together. We now enter the really important part of the Bill, for it is clearly recognised that the effect of this Bill will largely depend not only on the enforcement of the provisions by the Minister or the local authority but also on the possible exemptions. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Newton, who on Thursday said it was not the intention of the Minister to grant exemptions on a wide basis; that they would be restricted to those premises where in fact it was practically impossible for these provisions to apply.
I would refer the Committee to the fact that in subsection (1) the Minister will have power to
"exempt premises of any class from all or any of the requirements."
I freely accept that, perhaps in the initial period, a fairly wide latitude may have to be given to the Minister in regard to exemptions, although we have had the assurances of the Minister that he will be reluctant to grant these exemptions. I would refer the Committee to subsection (2), which reads:
"An exemption under this section may be granted unconditionally or subject to conditions."
I do not at the moment raise any objections to that; I can see the difficulty of the Minister in granting the exemption. He may or he may not in fact be able to lay down conditions. I hope that he will, because if exemptions are given the Minister could say, "All right, you cannot comply; but there is something that you can do to improve the working conditions of the people."
Now I come to the real issue—namely, the words:
"and without limit of time or for a specified period."
Obviously, in regard to a specified time I have no quarrel; I fully accept that the Minister may make these exemptions conditionally or unconditionally, and certainly for a specified time. But my friends and I strongly object to the fact that in this Bill at this early stage the Minister is able to grant exemption without limit of time. This is extremely wide ranging. It might well mean that the

853
Minister could exempt a whole range of office or shop premises for ever. I think that is utterly wrong, and I hope that the Government will agree with me.
Perhaps that is not what they mean by the words "without limit of time"; but a reading of the Bill gives the impression that an exemption could be given indefinitely without any regard to the development of conditions. Therefore, in the Amendment we suggest that instead of the words "without limit of time" the Minister, in granting exemptions, should not, at this early stage of the Bill, and perhaps when a lot of lessons will have to be learned, grant these wide-ranging exemptions to all classes of premises for longer than two years. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 4, leave out ("without limit of time or") and insert ("shall be granted").—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD DENHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has argued that exemptions should not be granted indefinitely to any class of premises, and if the Amendments we are discussing were accepted the Minister's power to grant exemptions to classes of premises would be limited to a maximum of two years at the end of which he would have to review the case and issue a further exemption order if one were justified. It might be as well to re-state the purpose of the powers in Clause 45. Where there is clearly a particular type of premises where any of the specified requirements (minimum space, temperature, sanitary conveniences, and washing facilities) appear unreasonable, the advantages of exempting such premises as a class are that the occupiers of that class of premises know where they stand, equitable and uniform treatment is secured, and the time of enforcing authorities is saved by cutting out the issue and review of individual exemption certificates.
As to the argument that a period of two years is in any case long enough for any class of premises to put their affairs in order, I invite the Committee to consider the case of offices and shops in hamlets with no water main. The provision of the main is quite outside the power of the villagers. The Minister might make an order exempting all such premises from the running water provision where mains water is not available
854
in the immediate locality. I see no harm in making such an order indefinite; if mains water is run into a particular hamlet, the order will by definition cease to apply to offices or shops in the locality. I have no doubt that there will be other examples where this power might be applied, although it will be used sparingly. Moreover, if an order is made which is not "self-cancelling" as in the example I have just given, I can give the assurance that my right honourable friend will keep it under review, but I do not think it is sensible to require such orders to be re-issued every two years in all cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was worried lest exemptions should be granted under this clause in cases where it would probably be reasonable to give exemption only for a short period. There are a number of cases where to require compliance with the provisions specified in this clause might be unreasonable—in regard to certain classes of kiosk it would be impossible to do this. But I am prepared to give the noble Lord an undertaking that exemptions will not be given for an indefinite period in cases where it would be reasonable to require compliance. In view of this rather limited assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD CHAMPION: May I ask the noble Lord what machinery will be used for keeping this matter under continuous review by the Minister? So often that phrase is used, and so often it means precisely nothing. I wondered whether there would be some machinery set up which would ensure a periodic review of cases of this sort. If so, I should have thought that the noble Lord has to some extent met my noble friend's representations in this matter.
LORD DENHAM: I am afraid I cannot help the noble Lord, Lord Champion, over this point at the moment. It is the intention that these cases will be kept under review, but details of the precise machinery are not available at the moment. I will let the noble Lord know.
LORD SHEPHERD: I think we are going to be in some difficulty because we have these two clauses. Obviously, I cannot do anything in regard to Clause 46 at the moment, but I can speak about it, because the Minister, when he replied to me, dealt with the position of shops

855
within a hamlet—the difficulty that there may be no water main, and therefore it would be too much to expect that within a period of two years the position would be rectified. I frankly did not envisage exemption of that type of case by the Minister. This was really a case of premises and not of a class. When one talks of "class" one thinks perhaps of hairdressing establishments or butchers' shops; one does not necessarily think of a particular butcher's shop or a particular hairdresser's shop. That becomes a premises. When one is considering exemptions for a type of premises that has no water supply, I cannot see how the Minister will be in a position to consider granting an exemption, above all else at the end of a period, or to say whether it is reasonable that the premises should now comply with the regulations. I should have thought that when one was dealing with the hamlet the exemptions would be the concern of the local authority intimately concerned with the problem.
I have carefully considered Clause 45 and cannot think of any type of classification where the Minister would give exemptions. It seems to me very difficult to think of any type of business of which one could say that overwhelmingly throughout the country, "This classification of office or shop is excluded from the provisions of the Bill". The noble Lord, Lord Denham, said that a shop in a hamlet with no water mains falls within a particular classification and that it should not have to provide sanitary or washing facilities, but I believe that the granting of that type of exemption should fall on the local authority rather than on the Minister, because the local authority would be aware of any changes which take place.
I come back to the point that where an exemption is granted without limit of time, unless the inspectors are very active, particularly those in the Central Inspectorate, it may be that the provisions of this Bill could well be complied with but people will be reluctant to do anything about it, and I do not believe that the Minister would be aware of the changed circumstances. The noble Lord, between now and the next stage—and I will not press this Amendment now—might tell us what the Minister means by "class of premises", because it should not go out
856
from this Committee that that classification means hamlets or hamlets of a type. If premises in these hamlets or villages are to be exempted because water does not at the moment exist, then it should be the responsibility of the local authority to grant the exemption and to cancel such exemption when water is supplied, and should not be within the province of the Minister.
LORD DENHAM: The sort of exemptions about which I have been talking can be dealt with either as a general class by the Minister, under Clause 45, or, as regards a particular place, under Clause 46 by the local authority. With regard to the use of the words "class of premises", I should like to draw the noble Lord's attention to Clause 88(5) which says:
"The definition of a class of premises or persons for the purposes of any regulations or order under this Act may be framed by reference to any circumstances whatever."
LORD SHEPHERD: I may be dim—I do not know—but the last reference the noble Lord has given does not help me. However, perhaps between now and the next stage this point may be considered. I would emphasise, however, that where possible the Minister should not be the main arbiter as to what exemptions are given, and that the local authority, with full knowledge of affairs locally, should decide whether or not it is within the ability of the occupier to comply with the conditions. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Power of authorities who enforce Act to grant exemptions from certain requirements thereof]:
LORD CARRINGTON: I beg to move Amendment No. 77, which is only to make way for the longer Amendment No. 80. The purpose of these two Amendments is as follows. Clause 46 deals with the power of enforcing authorities to grants exemptions to individual premises from certain requirements, and subsection (5) sets out part of the procedure for making an application for an exemption certificate. The subsection states that the application should be made on a prescribed form but does not specify to whom the form should be sent.

857
The purpose of these Amendments is quite simply to identify the appropriate authority.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 44, after ("made") insert ("to the appropriate authority").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.37 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to add to subsection (8):
"and a copy of that certificate shall be sent to the Minister's officer appointed under section 57 of this Act."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is relatively simple, and deals with those exemptions that may be granted by the local authority. In the other place the Government conceded the very valuable point in Clause 57 that there should be a Central Inspectorate which would have certain duties laid down by regulations. Its main purpose is to create uniformity in the application of this Bill throughout the country—a very important matter when one considers that there will be 1,700 authorities involved.
The purpose of this Amendment is to explore the way in which the Government propose that the inspectors to be appointed by the local authority shall pass information to the Central Inspectorate. At the moment we have to depend upon the issue of a regulation. I put forward the suggestion that when a local authority grants an exemption under this Bill a copy of the certificate should be sent to the Minister's officer—that is to say, the person appointed under Clause 57—for his information. From the information flowing into the Central Inspectorate one will be able to see broadly how the various local authorities are dealing with the problem and the extent to which exemptions are being granted, and in time a fairly general pattern will emerge as to how the various local authorities are administering this Bill, particularly Clause 46.
I appreciate that this may involve both local authorities and the Central Inspectorate in a considerable amount of detail and paper work, which is something I personally should like to avoid. But I hope the Minister will concede that when local authorities grant exemptions under this Bill they should inform the Central Inspectorate either as a certificate is
858
issued or at stated periods, perhaps giving an analysis of what has been granted and the reasons for the granting of exemptions. As I have said, the purpose of this Amendment is merely to explore the type of machinery which the Government propose to adopt, and to see that the Central Inspectorate will be able to carry out their duties of bringing about uniformity throughout the country.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 20, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD NEWTON: I should like to repeat something which I said in this connection during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. When I was referring to the powers given to the Minister under Clause 57, I said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 247 (No. 56), col. 994]:
"While these powers should give the Minister all that he needs to ensure that he Bill is enforced in a satisfactory and uniform manner, they will not be used to make routine inspections of local authority arrangements."
I went on a little later to add:
"I should make clear that he"—
that is, the Minister of Labour—
"has no intention of exercising his powers in a way which would tend to undermine the independence and responsibility of local authorities."
In other words, it is not intended to use the Central Inspectorate as a running check on administration by local authorities. I really do not think that any useful purpose would be served by having copies of exemption certificates sent to the nearest inspector appointed under Clause 57.
However, under Clause 59 annual reports have to be made to my right honourable friend by local and fire authorities, containing such information as he may require. This will include information about the number of exemptions granted from particular provisions of the Bill, and it will be possible by this means to keep a check on the way in which exemption powers are being exercised in different parts of the country. I think that should meet substantially, if not in total, one of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has in mind. I should also just mention that Clause 46(6) ensures that employees will be informed of applications for exemptions, and will have the oppor-

859
tunity of expressing their views to the relevant authority. So I hope I have convinced the noble Lord that in fact his Amendment is not necessary to achieve what I think he really has in mind.
LORD SHEPHERD: I must say that I am not convinced in this matter, and I would suggest to the noble Lord that he reads the requirements of Clause 57. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, in reply to me, said that it was never the intention of the Minister—that is, the Minister of Labour—to dictate to local authorities the manner in which they carry out the provisions of this Bill, particularly with regard to exemptions. But if the Minister would be good enough to read Clause 57(1)(a) he will see that here is a clear case where the Minister is in fact going to lay down regulations as to
"the manner of the discharge of those duties and of the exercise of the powers conferred by this Act on inspectors appointed by local authorities."
Here is a case where the Minister, by regulation, is going to tell the local authority inspector how he should proceed with his duties.
I welcome this particular clause and I shall come back to it on a later Amendment. But it is no use for the Minister to come here this evening to say that the Government do not propose to set up an organisation whereby the Central Inspectorate will be aware of the general proceedings by the local authorities under this Bill, such as on the granting of exemptions, merely on the ground that the Minister does not wish to interfere—I shall not use the word "dictate" because that is not what I mean—or to use initiative to see that there is this general uniformity. It is no use for the Minister to use that as a reason for not accepting the probe that I was making, when in Clause 57 the Minister is taking powers to tell an inspector appointed by a local authority about the manner in which he shall carry out his duties.
If the Minister has these powers to make regulations with regard to the inspectors, I should have thought it was quite right, particularly at this early stage of this Bill, and particularly if the Government wish to have uniformity, that all the time essential information should
860
be leaving the local authority to go to the Central Inspectorate. It is only then, surely, that the Minister will be aware of the proceedings under this Bill. I think it would really be unsatisfactory if, after this Bill had come into force, things could be going wrong, there could be lack of uniformity, that there could be some areas which were applying this measure fully in the interests of the worker and other local authorities which were doing nothing about it, and yet the Minister should wait, and Parliament should wait, for at least eighteen months before they were aware of the proceedings.
I should have thought that what mattered in the enforcement of the provisions of this Bill was not only the activities of the local authority and their inspectors, but the close working between them and the Central Inspectorate. To me, this is of cardinal importance. There should be a form of partnership between the Government's inspectors and those of the local authority. Both will have a lot of information to give each other. I do beg the Government, if they cannot make a gesture this evening, at least to consider this particular point carefully. It is made for no other purpose than to try to make this Bill effective as quickly as possible over the whole of the country.
LORD NEWTON: Of course, my right honourable friend will rely so far as possible on informal guidance. The noble Lord will note that power to make regulations is permissive. Clause 57(1)(a) says that the Minister may make regulations, et cetera. If regulations are used, I think they will deal with general matters and not with the detailed supervision of individual exemption certificates. But quite apart from that, I think it is one thing to give a general direction as to how a certain duty should be carried out; it is another to come along and snoop, and see whether what you have said is being observed. That is where I think we want to draw a line of distinction. As I say, it is not proposed to suggest that local authorities will not carry out their obligations, nor to employ a Central Inspectorate to keep a running check on them. What the Central Inspectorate will do will be to discover how, over the country as a whole, the various powers of the local authorities are being exercised, and to treat co-ordination in that way.
LORD CHAMPION: It seems to me that what we must do is to ensure a reasonable uniformity as between one local authority and another. As a magistrate, one is always running into difficulties because one's court is doing something a little differently from some other courts a little distance away. You fine £5 for exceeding the speed limit, while in another area the fine is £2. That always seems to me to bring magistrates' courts into some little disrepute. If in this matter of granting exemptions you have one exemption, or form of exemption, granted by one local authority and the adjoining local authority does not grant such an exemption, you will have this difficulty as between one local authority and another.
I am sure that my noble friend is quite right in trying to secure that, somehow, reports will be made which will enable the Minister perhaps to bring pressure upon local authorities to try to secure a reasonable degree of uniformity. If that can be done under the Bill as it stands we shall be perfectly happy; but, if not, we hope that between now and the Report stage the Minister will look at this matter and put down suitable Amendments. Certainly I regard this as having some importance, because of this difficulty that one runs into in the courts.
LORD SHEPHERD: I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DENHAM: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 25, after ("force") insert ("in relation to the premises").—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARRINGTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 11, at end insert—
("(14) For the purposes of subsection (5) of this section. 'appropriate authority', in relation to an application for the grant or extension of an exemption of any premises from a requirement imposed by section 5(2), 6, 9 or 10 (1) of this Act,—

(a) where the authority who, by virtue of section 52 of this Act, have power to enforce with respect to the premises the provision imposing the requirement (or, where the application is made by virtue
862
of subsection (12) above, the authority who, by virtue of that section would have power so to enforce that provision if it were in force) is other than a factory inspector, a mine and quarry inspector or a person authorised under subsection (3) or (6) of the said section 52, means that authority;

(b) where the authority who, by virtue of the said section 52, have power to enforce with respect to the premises the provision imposing the requirement (or, where the application is made as aforesaid, the authority who, by virtue of that section, would have power so to enforce that provision if it were in force) is a factory inspector or a person authorised under section 52(3) of this Act, means the factory inspector in charge of the district in which the premises are situate;

(c) where the authority who, by virtue of the said section 52, have power to enforce with respect to the premises the provision imposing the requirement (or, where the application is made as aforesaid, the authority by, by virtue of that section, would have power so to enforce that provision if it were in force) is a mine and quarry inspector or a person authorised under section 52(6) of this Act, means the mine and quarry inspector in charge of the district in which the premises are situate.")—(Lord Carrington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 47 to 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Information for employees]:
On Question, Whether Clause 50 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: May I draw my noble friend's attention to one phrase in subsection (2) of Clause 50? The last words of that subsection, refer to
"books or leaflets prepared under the auspices of the Minister".
This seems to me to be a somewhat strange phrase to find in an Act of Parliament, and I wonder whether it would not be better to have the books or leaflets either "prepared" by the Minister or "approved" by him. At the present moment, it seems to be extremely vague what his function will be.
LORD CARRINGTON: I will certainly look at it, although I think it is clear what it means. It means that the Ministry, in one way or another, are going to prepare simple booklets to explain what will happen under this Bill when it becomes an Act. I do not

863
think my noble friend need worry too much, but I will certainly look at it.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52:
Authorities who are to enforce Act
52.—(1) It shall be the duty of every local authority to enforce within their area (and for that purpose to appoint inspectors) the foregoing provisions of this Act and regulations thereunder—

(a) except sections 28 to 38 and regulations under any of them; and

(5) It shall be the duty of the London County Council, as regards office or shop premises forming part of a place of public entertainment within the administrative county of London other than such a place occupied by them, to enforce (and for that purpose to appoint inspectors) the foregoing provisions of this Act and regulations thereunder, other than provisions or regulations which it is their duty to enforce in their capacity of a fire authority under the Fire Services Act, 1947.
5.54 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved, in subsection (1), after "enforce" to insert:
", or, in respect of premises occupied by themselves, to comply with,"
The noble Lord said: In dealing with this Amendment No. 81, I should like also, with the permission of the Committee, to speak to Amendments Nos. 83 and 85, which also deal with Clause 52. By Clause 52, local authorities, non-county borough and other district councils, as well as county borough councils, are to be responsible, except as regards fire precautions, for inspecting most of the premises covered by the Bill, but in subsections (3) and (4) it is proposed that certain premises, including offices occupied by local authorities themselves shall be inspected instead by the Ministry of Labour Factory Inspectorate. It does not seem to me reasonable that, because there may be some doubt as to the efficacy of inspection of their own premises by the very smallest councils, these doubts should be allowed to determine the decision as to enforcement in relation to local authority premises as a whole.
Under existing legislation local authorities inspect their premises for certain purposes—for example, their catering establishments and their public slaughterhouses, under the Food and Drugs Act,
864
and also under petroleum licensing legislation. The standard of inspection adopted is invariably a rigorous one as the authority are anxious to set a high standard. The suggestion that local authority premises should be subject to external inspection derogates, I suggest, from the status of local authorities as responsible bodies, which has long been recognised by successive Governments and is expressed in the Report of the Local Government Manpower Committee. In the Bill it is proposed that Government offices should be inspected by Government inspectors, and I suggest that equal confidence should be placed in local authorities. There is surely no difference in principle between the two cases.
In particular, there seems no reason at all why one local authority should not be responsible for inspecting the premises of another local authority within its area. This situation arises not infrequently where the offices of a rural district or county council are situated in the area of a borough. Also, offices in county schools would, under the Bill, be inspected by the Factory Inspectorate, when they could well be inspected by officers of the district council in whose area the school was situated.
In Committee in another place an Amendment was put down which, if carried, would have had the effect of transferring the responsibility for inspection of local authorities' premises to the local authorities themselves, and it received support from both sides of the Committee—indeed, no objection was expressed to it. But in reply to the debate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour drew a distinction between the provisions in this Bill and those in other legislation under which local authorities inspect their own premises for the protection of employees, saying that there were none of these provisions in existing legislation. I suggest that this distinction does not affect the general argument. He went on to say, however, that he would be prepared to consider, without commitment, the possibility of putting down an Amendment at a later stage which would allow local authorities to inspect their own offices, and on this understanding the Amendment was withdrawn. A similar Amendment was moved at the Report stage, but the Government expressed a view

865
similar to that expressed on the Second Reading in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and again the Amendment was withdrawn. I wish to pursue the matter further on the grounds that I have already put forward.
The Association of Municipal Corporations informed me that they find it hard to believe what was stated in this House: that the majority of members of the National and Local Government Officers' Association would prefer their offices to be inspected by the Factory Inspectorate rather than by their own colleagues—who would, after all, be members of the same Association. Whether or not the Act has been complied with will be a simple question of fact, and it would be impossible in practice for a local authority to decline to comply with the Act after one of its own officers had shown it to be in default. In the last resort, the Minister could take action under Clause 60 which was introduced at the Report stage in another place and gives the Minister of Labour a default power.
The first of the Amendments to Clause 52 set down in my name is designed to overcome a technical objection to the enforcement of the provisions of the Bill by an authority against itself by providing that, instead, the authority shall comply with its provisions in respect of premises occupied by itself. The second and third Amendments remove from subsection (3) the premises specified in paragraphs (a) to (e) inclusive and the premises of provincial police authorities in paragraph (f) and have the effect of bringing them within the scope of local authority inspection rather than inspection by the Factory Inspectorate. It will be noticed that all these premises are local authority premises of one kind or another except those in paragraph (d) occupied by probation committees, in respect of which there seems no good reason why the Factory Inspectorate should act.
During the Second Reading debate in this House the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren (who has spent a lifetime in local government in this country, and for whose opinions one must have the greatest respect), after paying great tribute to the work of local authorities, gave reasons for thinking that in the interests of general co-ordination, guidance and advice the provisions of the 13ill relating to central
866
inspectorates are desirable. In spite of what he said I still hold to my dislike of the growth of this central bureaucracy. The noble Lord, Lord Burden, also on Second Reading, denounced my views and was kind enough to describe them as "absurd", and to say that how anyone in the 20th century could talk like that left him puzzled. In spite of those strictures, I still hold these views and I am, not unreasonably, going to keep them; in fact, the Association of Municipal Corporations also holds them.
I would like just to add this comment: it is true that in experience of local government in this country I must yield to the two noble Lords who expressed these views. I have not spent my lifetime in local government: I have spent my lifetime abroad. But I have some experience of administration, and I know something about what I may call the psychology of mistrust. As an illustration let us look at it this way: suppose we were dealing with some place in Africa. I think I can reasonably say that noble Lords opposite would immediately jump up and say, "You must allow people to learn. The only way to learn to exercise responsibility is to have it given to you." They would urge that people in Africa, far less qualified than the local authorities in this country, should immediately have the authority to work out their own destiny. It seems to me curious that when one comes to deal with the natives of England apparently you cannot trust them; you must have a central inspectorate; you must tell them how to do things. Yet they are better qualified, by knowledge, experience and tradition, and by surrounding example, than some of the people thousands of miles away to whom we are told we must always give authority the moment they ask for it. I think that is a not unreasonable comparison, and I do suggest that the local authorities cannot be expected to live up to the responsibilities which are increasingly given to them unless they are trusted to do the work themselves and to operate the Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 13, at end insect (", or, in respect of premises occupied by themselves, to comply with,").—(Lord Milverton.)
LORD BURDEN: I sincerely hope that the Committee will not accept the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton. There are over 300,000

867
professional, technical and clerical staffs employed by local authorities which vary in size and responsibilities from the powerful and financially-strong county councils down to the small urban district councils. Obviously, the office accommodation varies in character. As I know from my own local government experience, there are excellent offices; on the other hand, there are local authorities where, to put it mildly, the office accommodation is not up to modern standards. We ought not to lose sight of the fact that this vast body of men and women are employed by elected councillors, and these elected councillors would, if the noble Lord's Amendment were carried, also be the employers of the men or women who had to inspect the offices. If this Amendment were carried, no body of employers in this country would be put in the same position as that of the local authorities: namely, the judges as to whether they will or will not comply with the conditions laid in this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament.
What the noble Lord is asking, in effect, is that 300,000 men and women, the largest body of men and women engaged in a vocation, should be contracted out of the provisions of the Bill, and that it should be left entirely to the discretion—I use a colourless word—of employers as to whether or not the workers would enjoy the modern standards in office accommodation which this Bill endeavours to lay down. The men or the trade union or association of the men who would be responsible for carrying out the inspection of their own offices would feel it an invidious duty imposed upon them to report that their employers were not conforming to the law; and those employers would be left to decide whether or not they would comply with the law.
Also, I am authorised to say that the National and Local Government Officers' Association, knowing far more than I do of the conditions of offices right throughout the country, welcome this Bill and ask your Lordships not to put them outside its provisions. They ask you to allow to stand what the Government have provided, and to reject what is put forward by the noble Lord, believing that it would be a reactionary step and defeat what the Association has advocated for years—better office accommodation for
868
the men and women in the employ of local authorities.
LORD MILVERTON: May I ask the noble Lord a question before he sits down? How does he excuse Government offices for being inspected by Government inspectors? Why not local authority offices inspected by local authority inspectors?
LORD BURDEN: I say briefly that no body of men ought to be judge and jury in their own cause.
LORD NEWTON: I think we must all recognise that every occupier of premises to which this Bill applies would like to inspect his own premises. That is perfectly understandable. We discussed the principle behind these Amendments during Second Reading, and in view of what I said about this subject during Second Reading I cannot believe that my noble friend Lord Milverton will be surprised that I have to advise your Lordships to reject his Amendments.
I should like to explain the legal difficulty which is inherent in the Amendments. They require that local authorities shall comply with their legal obligations. But surely such a provision is unnecessary. The obligation to comply with the law already rests on local authorities, as it does on other owners and occupiers. The question we have to decide is whether local authorities should be left merely with the duty of compliance with the law or whether we should make some provision for enforcement. If any such provision is made, it can be done only by some outside agency, and in practice the Factory Inspectorate is the most suitable body for the purpose.
The Government's view is that it would be wrong to make no provision at all for enforcement in local authority premises. My noble friend has argued, as he did on Second Reading, that local authorities enforce other Acts in their own premises, which is true; but none of the other Acts is in any way comparable with this Bill in dealing extensively and intimately with the conditions provided by the authorities for their own servants. That is the point of distinction, and I suggest that it is a fairly valid one. No doubt authorities will make every effort to comply with the

869
requirements of the Bill, if it is enacted; but, as I said on Second Reading, it is desirable that, in their own interests, they should have the opportunity of showing that they have done so.
My noble friend recognised the fact that county councils, for instance, will find themselves inspected by borough or district councils. He seemed to think that that did not matter, because sometimes their premises were already inspected by another local authority; but in this case it would be inspection by another authority to see whether they were providing for the health, safety and welfare of their own employees, and I cannot see many county councils taking kindly to that sort of situation. For all these reasons, I must advise your Lordships that my noble friend's Amendments are not acceptable.
LORD MILVERTON: I am disappointed at the reply, but, in view of the determination of the Government, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.17 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD had given Notice of two Amendments relating to inspectors, the first being in subsection (1), to leave out "and for that purpose to appoint inspectors". The noble Lord said: After listening to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, on a previous Amendment. I cannot help feeling that the Amendment I now move, and Amendment No. 89, to which I shall also speak, with the permission of the Committee, become of major importance. Let me remind the Committee of what the noble Lord said. He said that it was not the intention of the Minister in any way to interfere with the local authorities who will administer this Bill when it becomes an Act. Clause 52 places upon local authorities responsibility for enforcing the Bill. It is well recognised that none of the provisions of this Bill will be of any use unless there is effective enforcement, and we recognise the formidable task that is being laid upon the local authorities and the inspectors they appoint.
I suggest that in the early stages special qualities would be required of the inspectors—tact, understanding and firmness. They must understand that much can be done by persuasion. We should not wish local authorities or inspectors to wield
870
the big stick, and take matters to court: that type of action would arise only when persuasion, and perhaps leadership of the rest of the community, have failed. The essential inspectorate which the Government have set up has met much of our disquiet as to how 1,700 local authorities would enforce the Bill uniformly throughout the country. But, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, I must say that I am becoming a little unsure about whether the Government intend to use this central inspectorate in the way indicated in another place. It seemed to my friends there that this essential inspectorate should be virile and strong, out among the local authorities endeavouring to co-ordinate, to give assistance and guidance, and to do all things possible to make enforcement of these provisions by local authorities successful as quickly as possible.
Under this clause, the local authorities have power to appoint inspectors. Some noble Lords on this side of the House—and, I have no doubt, some noble Lords on the other side—would have preferred to see the inspectors appointed in the same way as factory inspectors are appointed under the Factories Act, 1961. Other noble Lords—and perhaps they are in the majority; certainly they are on this side—support the decision of Her Majesty's Government that the operation of this provision should be by the local authorities and that the inspectors to carry out that duty should be appointed by the local authority.
My first criticism of Clause 52 is that it has the appointment of inspectors put in brackets, as though it were a last afterthought. It certainly clearly lays down that it shall be the local authority who are responsible, but the mere appointment of inspectors is dealt with as if it were an afterthought and is placed in brackets. We on this side believe that the real effect of this Bill will depend primarily upon the quality of the inspectors appointed. I would suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, should look at the Shops Bill of 1957 (if he has it before him), which went through this House, but failed in another place. There we have this provision that the local authority should appoint the inspectors set out with a considerable amount of prominence.
I suggest that this inspector has to be a man of authority and responsibility.

871
If we are to give this appearance, first the Bill should clearly indicate that we regard the appointment of inspectors as of major importance. The Gowers Report—noble Lords are no doubt familiar with its contents—found that some local inspectors appointed by local authorities to inspect shops under previous legislation were such gentlemen—no doubt they are very worthy gentlemen—as a car park attendant, as a mayor's mace bearer. These may be worthy gentlemen, but hardly the right type of men we shall obviously require in this case if this Bill is to proceed with expedition. I would, first of all, beg the Government to give importance to the appointment of inspectors in the Bill.
There is no doubt as to the qualifications of these inspectors. I have not stated the requirements in my Amendment, but it is something which perhaps we could look at at a later stage. Again, the Shops Bill of 1957 said:
"The Minister shall have power by regulations in regard to the qualifications of the inspectors."
I think there is a valid point that, particularly in those areas where there will be a large number of shops and offices to be dealt with, an inspector should not only have a qualification but should be provided with the time and facilities for him to carry out his operation. Therefore, I would ask the Government and your Lordships to accept the first part of my Amendment No. 89; that is, to give real prominence to the local authority appointing the inspectors, and to make it clear in the Bill that we as Parliament look to the inspectors for the enforcement of this Bill when it becomes an Act. It will be through the inspectors that this Bill will be enforced and will be a success, and I think we should clearly recognise that matter in this clause setting out the appointment.
The second part of my Amendment No. 89, to which I am speaking, is that the notice of appointment of such inspectors and their office should be published in the local paper. I think it must be recognised that the name of a man appointed to a position of such importance to the well being of hundreds of thousands of workers should be published in the newspapers, and should be clearly on the records of the local authority, so
872
that any person who may have a matter to raise with the inspector will have no difficulty in knowing who is the inspector and where he can be found.
I come now to perhaps the most major part of the Amendment, and that is in regard to the dismissal of inspectors. My honourable friends in another place had an Amendment down, both on Committee and Report, that no inspector appointed under this Act should be dismissed from his appointment without the approval of the Minister. I think it is true that such provisions have been inserted in previous legislation. I am not going to suggest that there are any, or many, local authorities that would allow perhaps personal interests to affect their decisions on the appointment or the terms of tenure of an inspector; but I feel bound to say that there are a number of local authorities, perhaps most of them, who have on their council men and women directly involved in this type of business—shopkeeper and small office. I should not like to say that they would put their personal interests before their duty; but if there is a suspicion that they could, or would, I think, in fairness to the councillor and also to the inspector, we should ensure that if any dismissal does take place, the confirmation of it should take place in the full light of council and should not be something done in the back rooms by a committee.
I think it is true of most local authorities that when staff are dismissed they are dismissed by a decision of a committee and the minutes are before the full council for approval. But often these minutes slip through without any comment; and there are certain local authorities which deliberately delegate these powers to a committee. I would refer the noble Lord once again to the Shops Bill of 1957. Here the Minister had power to lay down the terms of tenure of office of the inspector. May I draw the attention of the noble Lord to the words of the noble and learned Viscount who now leads the House in defence of this proposition in your Lordships' House on March 5, 1957? He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 202, col. 220].
"As regards tenure, I think that my noble friend has probably overlooked the wishes of the inspectors themselves. Inspectors are particularly vulnerable to victimisation. This particular power in Clause 51(2) of the Bill"—

873
that is the one I have just referred to—
"was put in at their request, in order to protect them from local victimisation as a result of their activities … victimisation by people whom they have inspected. Such people may have certain powers. They may be able to lobby local interests against the person who has inspected them. Public health inspectors are rather analogous officials, and they have been protected. … It is, therefore, at the request of the inspectors, or potential inspectors, that this clause was inserted. It was not designed for the purpose of limiting freedom of local authorities, but for protecting the integrity and freedom of the inspectors."
Those, as I say, are the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and I think we should take considerable note of them, because they are of great importance. The noble Earl, Lord Kilmuir, who formerly sat on the Woolsack, speaking in 1952 at the Conference of Inspectors said:
"I am putting in the proposals for the enforcement of the health, welfare and safety of non-industrial premises a no-dismissal clause so as to avoid any shadow of suspicion that inspectors are being victimised simply by doing their duty."
I would not overburden the case by saying that there are many local authority councillors who would use their position if they found that the inspector was making life too difficult for them. But in the interest of the local authority councillor and of the inspector, I think we should make it perfectly clear that there must be valid grounds for his dismissal, and that his dismissal must be carried out in the open.
When drafting this Amendment, I considered whether to use the same phrase as my friends used in another place: that dismissal should be subject to approval of the Minister. I felt that there was some point in the case made by the Government, that the Minister should not be called upon to intervene in what might appear to be semi-domestic matters. I take the view—and my friends share it—that where a local authority dismiss an inspector, such a dismissal should be approved by the authority sitting in public meeting. That would mean that someone on behalf of the inspector, perhaps a member, would be able to get up and query the position. I feel also that I should draw the noble Lord's attention particularly to Clause 58, which is the clause on restriction of disclosure of information. Suppose that
874
an inspector has been dismissed for something that he has seen, and has run foul of the local authority (I am putting this purely as conjecture) and is dismissed. As I see it, under this clause he would then be prohibited, under pain of a very heavy tine or imprisonment, from disclosing what he saw in those premises. As I see it, this clause will prohibit any inspector, if he suffers injustice, from producing the evidence to substantiate the case he has made and which has resulted in his dismissal. Therefore, if Clause 58 is to stand, I think the utmost protection must be given to the inspector, so that he can carry out his duties with integrity without any fear from any quarter.
I hope that the Government will respond in this matter. I say that particularly in view of the fact that my friends in another place did not press their Amendment on the Report stage that dismissal should be referred to the Minister, because they believed that Clause 57 was a good deal stronger in intention than the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has given us to understand this afternoon. The noble Lord stressed the word "may"—he said that the Minister "may" make regulations. We gather from that that the Minister may not make regulations. These words in paragraph (a) were the words that made my friends decide not to proceed with the Amendment that I have just described. They felt that it was quite clear, from the regulations with respect to the manner of discharge of those duties in the exercise of the powers, that the inspectorate were to be active and that there was to be co-ordination. It would appear to us that the local authority inspector would be able to work closely with the central inspector, and if there was any case of dismissal, or any dispute between him and the local authority on his duties, or on the way he was carrying out the duties, at least he had some form of appeal to an impartial body. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, has given us an indication, rightly or wrongly—I will not attack him on that—that there is doubt whether these regulations will be made, particularly in regard to paragraph (a).
I beg the Government to consider very seriously the position of these local inspectors. First of all, let us give them prominence and importance, because it is on their shoulders that will lay responsibility

875
for the enforcement of this Bill when it becomes an Act. I hope that the Government can see that the question of qualifications will arise; that if these provisions are to be enforced the inspector should be of sufficient calibre, responsibility and the other qualities I mentioned, to see that the various office and shop occupiers will comply with these proceedings. Above all else, let us see that there is no doubt and no fear of victimisation, and that, whatever local authorities do outwardly and clearly, there is no doubt at any stage if local authorities are in dispute with their inspector on the carrying out of those duties. I believe this is of cardinal importance, and I hope the Government can meet us in this matter. I beg to move.
Page 42, line 14, leave out the said words.—(Lord Shepherd.)
6.35 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: I had not realised when the noble Lord put his Amendment down that he had deleted the first Amendment: "(and for that purpose to appoint inspectors)" because he was worried that it was not put prominently enough in the Bill. I can give him an assurance that this is only a drafting point. Of course, there is not the smallest intention of playing down the importance of inspectors. Indeed, as the noble Lord himself said, the enforcement of the Bill depends to a large extent on whether or not you have inspectors, and whether or not the inspectors are efficient. I can give him a positive assurance that the fact that the words are in brackets is only a Parliamentary draftsman's way of putting it. I do not believe there will be much difference in practice whether the words are in brackets or not, so long as the inspectors are appointed and they are good inspectors. I will give him an assurance that it is the Government's intention, not only to see that the inspectors are appointed, but that they should be good inspectors.
On the other two Amendments, I see what the noble Lord is trying to do and I have some sympathy with what he said about his new subsection (3), but I would ask him to bear the following points in mind. On subsection (2) there is this point. It would require the publication of a notice of an inspector's appointment in local newspapers. So far as I know,
876
there is no similiar provision in any other Act dealing with local government inspection, and certainly not in the Local Government and Public Health Act. So far as I know, there has been no demand whatever for any such provision. If the noble Lord's aim—and I understand this aim—is to make certain that the administration of the Bill by local authorities receives adequate publicity and people know who the inspectors are, and so on, I should have thought it was already met in Clause 59, to which my noble friend Lord Newton referred on a previous Amendment, and which relates to the annual reports which authorities are obliged to submit to the Ministry. If anybody wants to know the names of their local inspectors, all they have to do is to inquire at the town hall or local council office, and they will produce the answer. I should have thought it was going a little far to oblige local authorities to announce these appointments in the newspapers. So far as I know, there is no other comparable provision in any Act dealing with this sort of matter.
With regard to the noble Lord's last point, that dismissal should require the approval of a local authority in public meeting, here again, in spite of what he has said, my information is that there is no precedent in any Act of this kind that such a provision has ever been made before. I would put this to the noble Lord. I quite understand that he is worried that there might be cases in which there would be victimisation, but I put the other side of it to him. I think there could be cases in which it would be contrary to the inspector's own interest that his affairs should be discussed in public session by a local authority. I could imagine that it might be extremely embarrassing to him, and in many ways it would be very unfair that this should be done. So I think that one has to balance the possible injustice done to the inspector—though I will come in a minute to how I think we could remedy that—against the possible injury which could be done to his own personal position in some instances. I should have thought that this was the sort of matter which was best left to the machinery of consultation and negotiation between the local authorities and the staff associations concerned. I am sure that it is not the right sort of provision to put in a Bill of this kind and it would certainly

877
place restrictions on the independence of local authorities, which I should not have thought was entirely reasonable, although I quite see what the noble Lord is trying to do.
I should like to make one last point before I sit down. I think that the noble Lord opposite has read too much into what my noble friend Lord Newton has said about Clause 57. Certainly I agree with him that it was on the understanding that the powers in Clause 57 would, in cases of the kind that the noble Lord has mentioned, be appropriate to safeguard the inspector's position that his friends in another place did not press their Amendment; that is still my understanding of the matter. I hope, with those observations, that perhaps the noble Lord will be satisfied that, on the whole, it would be better not to do what he suggests but that the Government have every sympathy with the motive that he has in mind.
LORD SHEPHERD: I should be less than honest if I did not say that I am still not entirely happy, but I will come to that in a moment. I do not wish to delay the Committee, but this is a subject of very great importance. First of all, with regard to Clause 52, I think it should be altered. Merely to give the stress upon the importance that we relate to the inspector, I think the Bill should say that Parliament expects that the local authority shall appoint inspectors to ensure the operation of this Bill within their area. Perhaps it might be called a drafting point. I am sorry that I misled the noble Lord with my first Amendment, which was really paving the way. My noble friends feel that we should quite clearly show in the Bill the importance we attach to the position of the inspector. As I see it, other legislation has given this prominence to this official.
In regard to the question of address, I somehow remember a debate in which such provision was granted. Whether it was the Weights and Measures Bill of two years ago I do not know, but I remember a debate in which it was clearly acknowledged that, for the assistance of people, the name and address of the inspector should be made known. Whether it should be done by a newspaper announcement, for example, in the local gazette, or whether his name should
878
be prominently displayed in the council's offices, I do not mind, but I think it should be displayed somewhere, so that he is not some official who is unknown to the general public but known merely to some committee. His name and address should be readily available to the public.
I appreciate the point which the noble Lord made in regard to a public meeting of the local authority. This certainly was a point that entered my mind, but I could not think of any other way of bringing the dismissal of an inspector into the open, to provide that it should not be something done behind closed doors, and to show clearly that there was no case of victimisation. This inspector is in a very delicate position. It has been clearly recognised by many people involved in local authority work and in the enforcement of local authority legislation. I think we should give him far more protection than the Bill gives at present. Perhaps we could do it more readily if in Clause 57(1)(a)—we might consider this at the next stage of the Bill—where it is stated that the Minister
"may make regulations with respect to the manner of the discharge of those duties and of the exercise of the powers …",
we inserted the words which appeared in the Shops Bill and for which the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, fought so strongly:
"terms of tenure of office of the inspector",
In other words, I would suggest that, while we may not say that a dismissal has to be accepted by the Minister or local authority in public assembly, it is right that we should give the local inpector the opportunity for an appeal in the event of his dismissal and if he thinks he has been a case of victimisation. This may be a point which could be dealt with, as the noble Lord said, by consultation between the interested bodies, but I think that this inspector should have a right of appeal if he has been dismissed for something for which he feels his dismissal was wrong, because he merely carried out his duties under this Bill and ran foul of some particular organisation or person. Therefore I ask the Government seriously to consider giving this right of appeal to the local inspector if he is dismissed.

879
The noble Lord did not answer the point I made in regard to Clause 58 and the position of an inspector if he is dismissed. Could he use the information which was available to him to substantiate his position in open court? As I understand it, this clause precludes him from use of any of this information other than in criminal proceedings in pursuance of this Act. If the inspector were to take action in court because he believed he had been dismissed wrongly, could he use that information? The words "in pursuance" are here. I do not know how one should read it, but it seems to me one could use the information only in a law case connected with the operation of this Bill. The noble Lord is on the edge of his seat.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Before my noble friend answers that point may I say that, as I understand it, Lord Shepherd, is contemplating going back to this matter at another stage so all is not lost if the provisions of Clause 58 are not dealt with entirely at the moment. I have an Amendment down on Clause 58 and I wish to raise this whole matter when it comes to this point, but, in fact, what the noble Lord has said has rather widened the scope of what I had in mind on that point. Perhaps there will be more time when we come to Clause 58 for my noble friend to discover the answers on this.
LORD CARRINGTON: I do not want to discover the answers; I know the answers. I did not think it was very sensible to discuss Amendments on Clause 58 when we were discussing Amendments on this clause. What I was going to say to the noble Lord was that, as my noble friend behind me has an Amendment on Clause 58, perhaps we could discuss it then. You never know; the Government may even be prepared to accept an Amendment of this kind.
On the major issues which the noble Lord opposite has raised, I think the prominence of the inspectors is really a drafting point. I am reliably informed that the law takes no notice of punctuation; and if one read any Act drafted by Parliamentary draftsmen one would accept that without the smallest difficulty. But I do not think it really matters. The point is that inspectors have to be appointed; local authorities
880
have to appoint these inspectors, and they are going to be men of substance. I think that that ought to satisfy the noble Lord. But on the real point at issue which is worrying the noble Lord, I should have thought it would be much better to leave it as I suggested. The sort of case he has in mind would happen very rarely, if at all. There are very few councils which consist of only one class of person or of only one political Party. I think that victimisation of the kind he suggests would be most unlikely. If there were such a case, it surely could be dealt with either by the ordinary consultations I have in mind or under Clause 57, which in another place was recognised to be partly for this purpose. I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I have no intention at this stage of pressing it, because I recognise I have still two more opportunities of dealing with this matter. Perhaps I might say this to the noble Lord. Would he not accept that, when a man has been put in a position by duty to enforce the provisions of this Bill, if there were any possibility that his dismissal arose from what he was doing under this Bill he should have at least a right of appeal on his dismissal? I think it is as simple as that. It may be a fact that there would be only one or two cases a year, perhaps only one or two cases in a generation, but even if that were so that is quite sufficient cause in principle to have this requirement. This is obviously a matter we shall have to pursue at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.52 p.m.
LORD DENHAM LORD DENHAM moved, in subsection (3), after paragraph (c) to insert:
"(d) premises comprised in premises used for the purposes of a school which, within the meaning of the Education Act 1944, is maintained by a local education authority ".
The noble Lord said: Subsection (3) of Clause 52 provides that the Factory Inspectorate shall enforce the Bill in premises occupied by a county council or local authority. The attention of my right honourable friend has been drawn to the fact that this provision could result in a confusing division of responsibility for enforcement in office and shop premises in schools maintained under

881
the Education Act. As drafted, the provision would result in factory inspectors being responsible for enforcement in schools established and maintained by a county council or local authority—that is, the county schools—and for local authorities to be responsible for enforcement in other schools maintained by a county council or local authority—that is to say, the voluntary schools. This division of responsibility is unsatisfactory and the Amendment has the effect of providing that all maintained schools which form part of the public education system should be inspected by one enforcing authority, the Factory Inspectorate. This problem does not arise in Scotland, and therefore a Scottish adaptation of the Amendment is unnecessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 42 at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DENHAM: The purpose of this Amendment is to provide that enforcement of the Bill in fuel storage premises on land owned by the railways shall be carried out by the Factory Inspectorate. We think that this is a very reasonable arrangement and one that should make for economy in administration, because factory inspectors will be enforcing the Bill generally in railway premises and will therefore be visiting the areas in which these railway coal depôts are situated. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 24, leave out from ("applies") to end of line 29 and insert:
("(d) railway premises;
(e) office premises occupied by railway undertakers for the purposes of the railway undertaking carried on by them and situate in the immediate vicinity of the permanent way (not being office premises comprised in hotels); and
(f) fuel storage premises owned by railway undertakers").—(Lord Denham)
LORD SHEPHERD: I understood that the Government conceded the point that fuel depoôts in the wholesale sense would be covered by this Bill. These may, of course, be close to refineries which are covered by the Factories Act. Perhaps the Minister would consider between now and the next stage whether that class of premises would equally be covered by the
882
factories inspector. Perhaps the noble Lord would consider that point.
LORD CARRINGTON: Fuel storage premises owned by the railways would be covered, if that is what the noble Lord has in mind.
LORD SHEPHERD: It has been conceded that fuel depôts for the wholesale section of the supply of liquid fuel would be covered. Many of these are, in fact, close to oil refineries which are covered by the Factories Act. I think perhaps there is a case for dealing with their premises in a similar way to those of railways: to save time and bother, to have it carried out by one inspector.
LORD CARRINGTON: Perhaps I might look at that point.
LORD HAWKE: Before we leave this Clause, I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell me if he has made up his mind how many persons are going to be involved in this inspection. We are to have inspectors, and presumably deputy inspectors, and their staffs. Their task will presumably be a good deal bigger than the task of the factory inspectorate, because I imagine that the number of offices, shops and railway premises is greater than that of existing factory premises in this country. The noble Lord has also mentioned that they are to be men of substance. I gather, from what I can understand of the Bill, that if the cost of this department falls on the ratepayer it will be reimbursed by the taxpayer. Perhaps the noble Lord would confirm that. Nevertheless, we as taxpayers should like some idea of how many persons we are likely to be employing to police this scheme.
LORD CARRINGTON: I could not say how many inspectors there will be. But I think the noble Lord must recognise that, if we have a Bill of this character, containing some fairly complicated provisions, and placing statutory obligations on a number of people to do things which the House as a whole considers to be desirable, then it will be necessary to see that the Bill is enforced; and there will necessarily be inspectors to do it. When I said "men of substance" (I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, means) I meant that they would be good inspectors. If there were too many inspectors I think we should be in the happy position in this House of

883
relying upon the inspection of these inspectors by my noble friend.
LORD HAWKE: Surely it must be a new principle for the Government to set on foot an organisation without having an idea of what it is going to involve, in persons or cost.
LORD CARRINGTON: The Minister may have a good idea how many there will be and what they will cost. I must confess that at the moment I have not. But I will try to find out.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT FURNESS VISCOUNT FURNESS moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "London County Council" and insert "council of a county". The noble Viscount said: The purpose of this Amendment, which may not be quite clear from the drafting, is to ensure that the position of theatres and cinemas throughout the country will be the same. Under the law as it stands at present, theatres are inspected by county councils; and that, of course, includes the councils of county boroughs. Under this Bill offices in theatres come in for inspection. In the territory of the London County Council and in county boroughs this will mean that the same authority will inspect both the theatre qua theatre or cinema qua cinema and the offices, and that outside these areas the borough councils or urban district councils and rural district councils will inspect the offices in those theatres or cinemas. This Amendment is designed to have the effect of putting all the inspection on the county council.
This point was raised in another place and the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Labour, in answering a similar Amendment, said that the only effect of the Amendment would be to bring together under the same authority responsibility for enforcing the Bill and for licensing in residual county areas where we must accept that theatres and cinemas are not so numerous. The information I have is that there are 1,420 cinemas in rural district and urban district council areas, and only 1,000 in the areas of the L.C.C. and county boroughs. So I should have said that the balance was on the other side. There are also many theatres—about 75—out-
884
side the county borough areas and the L.C.C. These include such theatres as the Arts, at Cambridge, the Chichester Festival Hall, at Chichester, the Royal Shakespeare Theatre, at Stratford, and the Theatre Royal, Windsor. So I would have thought that this was not quite such a small point as it may seem at first sight, or as indeed the Government have indicated at first sight. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 33, leave out ("London County Council") and insert ("Council of a County").—(Viscount Furness.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I wish to support what my noble friend Lord Furness has said about this. The information I have is that there are rather more than 75 theatres outside the London County Council and the county borough districts. My information is that there are about 130, as well as the 1,400 or 1,500 cinemas. In another place, I think at the later stages of the Bill, the Government resisted this Amendment, largely on one ground, namely, that if it were to be accepted that in the case of these places of public entertainment the county council should be the enforcement authority for the purposes of the Bill, then that authority would have to go through all the rigmarole of returns, reports, inspections and everything else that are involved in respect of the county district councils under the Bill as it now stands. I wonder whether in fact this is a sound answer.
In the first place, the county councils will be doing the fire inspection in any event, because it seems to me that Clause 52(1)(a) exempts the county districts from dealing with these matters of fire and they will be dealt with by the county authorities. In any event, if the county authorities are going to do the licensing of the cinemas and, on behalf of the Lord Chamberlain, the inspection of the theatres, it may be that in order to have these two matters dealt with by the same authority it would be better to do it the other way round. Perhaps my noble friend will consider whether these two duties in regard to theatres and cinemas which are now done by the county council should not be done by the rural or urban district council. It is absurd that there should be two authorities dealing with exactly the same building and, in

885
a large part, looking for exactly the same points, with their own inspectors going round regularly, and I have no doubt frequently, in order to see that these things are correct. Cannot my noble friend see that there is some point of substance in this, and try to get the matter dealt with by one authority, so that the position is quite clear?
LORD CARRINGTON: I think that there are difficulties about the suggestion of my two noble friends behind me, though it is perfectly true that this Bill does make a special case of the London County Council. In spite of what Lord Furness has said, I hope he will agree that the case of London is quite different from that of the rest of the country and that the balance of advantage is against extending the Bill in the way he proposes. The original reason for making special provision for London was that the L.C.C. as agents of the Lord Chamberlain under the Theatres Act, 1843, inspect many theatres in their area. It was therefore thought right to make the Council the enforcement authority in offices and shops in London theatres—and I would emphasise that we are talking only about offices and shops in cinemas and theatres—instead of giving this duty to the metropolitan boroughs (who would otherwise be the appropriate enforcing authorities under the Bill).
As the result of discussion in Standing Committee in another place, my right honourable friend agreed that it would be logical to extend the L.C.C.'s duties under the Bill to other places of entertainment which are inspected by them. There is a good, practical reason for this provision, as my noble friend Lord Furness has agreed, in that London has by far the largest concentration of theatres, cinemas and other places of public entertainment in the country. It is the concentration which is important, rather more than the numbers. The main concentrations outside London are found in the largest towns, which are county boroughs and so are in any case enforcing authorities under the Bill. The Amendment therefore affects only those areas administered by county councils outside London. I take the point that these councils have an interest in places of entertainment as licensing authorities, but I think that this interest is not normally exercised with the aim of employee pro-
886
tection in mind; it is usually from the point of view of the public, and is therefore not related to the purposes of the Bill.
The effect of my noble friend's Amendment, as my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross said, would be to impose a new range of duties on county councils for a limited area of employment—just the shops and offices in the cinemas and theatres. They would, as a result, in spite of what he said, have to maintain registers, issue and review exemptions, compile statistics and send in annual reports to the Minister. There is the further complication that in quite a number of county areas the county councils already delegate their powers to the lower tier authorities—that is to say, the district councils, which are, of course, the enforcing authorities under this Bill. In other areas magistrates may themselves he the licensing authorities for places of public entertainment. The position is really rather confused. I think that, apart from the main argument, it would be clearer to keep the pattern of enforcement which is laid down in the Bill. Certainly, in my opinion it would be a mistake to complicate further this pattern of enforcement. I do not think that any conflict will arise between the requirements of the licensing authorities and the enforcing authorities under the Bill in places where they are not the same. I hope that, with that explanation, my noble friend will see that the balance of advantage lies in leaving the Bill as it is.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I wonder whether, before my noble friend Lord Furness replies, my noble friend Lord Carrington could explain a little more about this delegation, because this is what I suggested might be the answer. Is it a widespread custom of the county councils to delegate to the county districts the duties of licensing and inspecting cinemas and theatres? Because, if so, it will presumably be no more difficult in other places. If they all did it, it would be the same authority in every case.
LORD CARRINGTON: I could not give the number of authorities who do this, but I am informed that quite a number of them do. I am not suggesting, by any means, that they all do it. It may well be a way out if my noble friend could encourage them all to do it.
VISCOUNT FURNESS: I am not wholly convinced by the reply of my noble friend, although he has gone fairly far to meet me by suggesting, even indirectly, that more county councils should delegate to lower authorities. As I say, he has not wholly convinced me. But I do not wish to press the point any further, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 53 to 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Restriction of disclosure of information]:
7.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved to leave out "pursuant to this Act" where that phrase first occurs. The noble Viscount said: This raises the point which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was talking about earlier this evening in connection with Clause 52. I think I am right in supposing that what has happened in the case of the drafting of this clause is that the precedent in the Factories Act, 1961, has been used, but it has been adapted in such a way because of the nature of what goes on in shops and offices that the clause, as it now stands, looks very much more frightening than it is meant to be. The similar section in the Factories Act prevents the inspector from disclosing any information he obtains in a place he has gone into in the course of his duty regarding any manufacture or trade process or trade secret. I have a strong suspicion that Her Majesty's Government mean only the same sort of information to be dealt with by this particular clause. On the other hand, the drafting as it now stands is by no means clear, and even if this is what is meant it is certainly not what the clause now says.
As I understand it, the clause would not prevent any factory inspector from giving evidence in a negligence case where somebody had fallen down stairs which he had seen earlier were defective and had reported to his authority. It would be impossible for the plaintiff in such a case to call the factory inspector to give evidence about the defective staircase if the factory inspector was going to be liable to these large penalties or
888
imprisonment. I am certain that that is not what the Government meant. I put down the Amendment to allow him to give such evidence in any civil case, quite apart from one which arose out of this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, extended the case to the instance of the inspector finding himself in front of something which might not be a legal inquiry or court but an administrative tribunal of one sort or another, before which he was arraigned and was defending himself against dismissal. This would not be covered by my Amendment, and I think that it should be covered. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will be able to say that something can be done about this clause so that its enormous width can be restricted to what I am certain, was intended in the first place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 24, leave out ("pursuant to this Act").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD CARRINGTON: My noble friend is quite right in his interpretation of this clause and these words as they now stand. Indeed, this point was raised in another place during the passage of the Bill. It was brought to the attention of my right honourable friend that this principle might work rather unfairly, in exactly the same way in which my noble friend has suggested, either to the disadvantage of the employer or the employee, or both. My right honourable friend is looking into this question, and I will bring to his attention not only the observations made by my noble friend behind me, but also what Lord Shepherd said earlier about this matter and the dismissal of inspectors. Although my noble friend will realise that I cannot commit the Minister of Labour to an acceptance of an Amendment on the lines that the noble Viscount has suggested, I will give an assurance that we are studying the matter very carefully, and, if my right honourable friend is satisfied with the arguments advanced this afternoon, he will put down a suitable Amendment at a later stage.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am very grateful to my noble friend, and I hope that it will result in something. If this clause remains as it is now written it is going to have a very

889
deleterious effect when it comes to the point, because it is impossible to restrict the simple word "information" in the way my noble friend says is intended. It is going to lead to all the trouble which both Lord Shepherd and I foresee, and I very much hope we shall see an Amendment on Report stage; and I hope it will be an Amendment which is wider than mine, which does not cover the other point I mentioned.
LORD SHEPHERD: We are fearful of some of the interpretations by the Courts, even by the House of Lords sitting judicially, as to what will be understood to be the object of the Bill and what they themselves will read into it; there might be some disparity. Therefore, this clause should be seriously looked at. My own feeling at this stage is that I would not mind asking the Government to delete this clause from the Bill. Perhaps that is asking too much at this late stage, but I hope we shall see at Report stage—or, if possible, before Report stage—the Government's proposals on this very important clause.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clauses 59 to 69 agreed to.
LORD DENHAM LORD DENHAM moved, after Clause 69, to insert the following new clause:
Local authorities' inspectors in Scotland to have power to institute proceedings in certain cases
".—(1) An inspector appointed under this Act by a local authority may, if duly authorised in that behalf by a general resolution of the authority, make a summary application under section 22 of this Act with respect to any premises with respect to which the authority have power to enforce any of the provisions of sections 4 to 21 of this Act; and for the purposes of this subsection the expression 'premises' includes a common part of a building to which section 42 or section 43 of this Act applies.
(2) An inspector appointed under this Act by the authority discharging in any area the functions of fire authority under the Fire Services Act 1947 may, if duly authorised as aforesaid by the authority, make a summary application under section 32 of this Act with respect to any premises in that area with respect to which they are the appropriate authority for the purposes of that section."
The noble Lord said: As your Lordships are aware, Clause 22 of the Bill provides a procedure under which an enforcing
890
authority can make a complaint to a magistrates' court (or in Scotland a summary application to a sheriff) in respect of dangerous conditions and practices in premises. There is a similar procedure under Clause 32 as regards means of escape in the case of fire. It may be of the greatest importance that action under these provisions should be taken without delay. It has been suggested that it might be necessary for a local authority inspector to submit a particular case to the next meeting of a council or committee to obtain authority to take proceedings under these clauses, with an inevitable lapse of time before a complaint or summary application could be made.
After studying the point, my right honourable friend is satisfied that in England and Wales powers exist in the Local Government Act, 1933, and the London Government Act, 1939, which enable a local authority to authorise one of their officers to exercise their discretion for the purpose of instituting proceedings under Clause 22 or Clause 32 in a particular case. So far as Scotland is concerned, however, the provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947 are insufficient for this purpose, and for that reason my right honourable friend has proposed this new clause which will give similar powers to Scottish local authorities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 69 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 70 agreed to.
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved, after Clause 70 to insert the following new clause:
Appeal from refusal of court to make order
".Where on a complaint made to an appropriate court under subsection (1) of section 22 of this Act the court fails to make an order under that section the complainant may appeal therefrom to a court of quarter sessions."
The noble Lord said: This proposed new clause was the subject of a good deal of discussion in another place, and I can deal very briefly with it. Clause 70 provides that a person aggrieved by an order made by a magistrates' court on determining a complaint under the Act may appeal therefrom to a court of quarter sessions, but no provision is made in the

891
Bill for appeal by a local authority in cases where a court refuses to make an order. It is not even clear whether local authorities have a right of appeal upon a question of law by way of a case stated to the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division.
The new clause would enable local authorities to appeal against a decision of a court under Clause 22, whereby it declined to make an order for putting down dangerous conditions and practices. Local authorities and their officers are, in the nature of things, more knowledgeable about the matters with which the Act deals than are justices, and therefore they should at least be given a second chance to make their case.
In another place this matter was raised in Committee, when the Minister of Labour made the following comments:
"It is arguable that enforcing authorities should have the same rights of appeal. The circumstances are different, however, from the case of a citizen who is wanting to appeal against a decision which may involve him in considerable expense or even shut down his office or shop. That case is different in kind from that of the enforcing authority wishing to pursue its disagreement through the magistrates' courts. This is an issue which is between the administration and the administered, and I think the cases are quite different. I do not think we can argue that there is necessarily an equal right of appeal in these circumstances."
That is what the Minister said, but the explanation is not an entirely convincing one. While it is proper that an employer should have a right of appeal, because his business may be involved or because he may incur expense, it is equally proper that the enforcing authority should have it also, in the interests of the persons who are employed in the relevant premises.
This matter was raised again at Report stage in another place, when a new clause was moved similar to that here proposed. It will be noticed that in another place there was disagreement about the state of the law on the point. To meet the objections stated in col. 478 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, for March 6, I have inserted in the new clause a reference to subsection (1) of Section 22, and thus debarred local authorities from appealing against an interim order which might have resulted in the case appearing before the court four times. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 70 insert the said new clause—(Lord Milverton.)
LORD CARRINGTON: As my noble friend has said, this is a matter which was discussed at considerable length in another place. As he also said, legal opinion on both sides of the Chamber took one view, while some lay members took another view. I am afraid that much of what I say will be in effect what my right honourable friend the Minister said in answer to this Amendment in another place. Because, though it may on the face of it seem equitable that equal rights of appeal should be given to both parties, in fact I should have thought that their interests were quite different. The decision of the magistrates' court against the occupier hits his interests—he has to do something and spend money, or even shut down his premises—and in accordance with general principles about appeal from courts of first instance, he is given the right of appeal to a higher court. But the enforcing authority is not in the same position; he has not got to do anything or spend any money because of the decision. He finds that the court has not upheld his judgment on an enforcement issue.
In my view, particularly in view of this difference, there is not a sound case for going further in this Bill than we did in the Factories Act. In factories, the safety issues are likely to be even more important than those under this Bill. One must have finality in enforcement at some point, and, so far as the enforcing authority is seeking to impose his will on the occupier, the Government's view is that finality should be at the stage of the magistrates' court, as in the Factories Act.
But the enforcing authority may have an alternative course of action, if a magistrates' court refuse to make an order under Clause 22. Under that clause an enforcing authority may apply to a magistrates' court for an order which, for example, might prohibit the use of premises in a dangerous condition. If the enforcing authority can satisfy the court that the immediate danger exists, no doubt the court will make the necessary order. If the court is not satisfied, then it will be open to the enforcing authority to charge the person concerned with an offence under the Bill, if a contravention of some other provision can be proved.

893
So I do not think it right that the appeal to quarter sessions should be extended in the way intended by my noble friend in moving this new clause. I hope that, in view of the explanation I have given, he will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MILVERTON: In view of the explanation which the noble Lord has given—
LORD SHACKLETON: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, may I ask the First Lord whether there are further powers? I am not a lawyer, but if, in fact, the court take a decision which is unsatisfactory, and which according to legal advice is unsatisfactory, is there some process of a writ of mandamus or something of that kind? I do not know whether this is a matter on which a lawyer can give us advice. Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, could help us. Because I understand there are times when magistrates take decisions when it is open for the matter to be taken to a High Court on a writ of mandamus.
LORD CARRINGTON: The noble Lord has torpedoed me amidships. I do not know. I will find out and let him know, but I am afraid I could not, without notice, answer that question.
LORD MILVERTON: In view of the noble Lord's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 71 and 72 agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock and resumed at twenty-five minutes past eight o'clock.]
Clause 73 [Amendment of Section 125 (1) of Factories Act 1961, and provisions consequential thereon]:
LORD NEWTON: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 11, at end insert—
("(3) The reference in the said section 125 (1) to a warehouse in or for the purposes of which mechanical power is used, being a warehouse neither forming part of a factory nor belonging to the owners, trustees or conservators of a dock, wharf or quay, shall be construed as not including a building occupied
894
by a wholesale dealer or merchant where goods are kept for sale wholesale or a part of a building so occupied where goods are so kept.")—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 74 to 78 agreed to.
Clause 79 [Mode of service of notices under this Act]:
8.27 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved, in subsection (3), after the third "given" to insert "or sent by post". The noble Lord said: This is a small, drafting Amendment, really, although one needs to have some temerity to suggest that one can make a drafting Amendment. The clause deals with the mode of service of notices under the Act, and under subsection (1) a notice to a factory or mine or quarry inspector may be delivered to him or left at or sent by post to his office. Under subsection (2), a notice to any other person may be similarly served; but the wording of subsection (3) is such as clearly to suggest that notice to a corporation or a firm has to be served or given in person and cannot be sent by post, which is unreasonable on the face of it.
The Ministry of Labour say that this interpretation is incorrect. They say:
"We are advised that a notice under subsection (3) can be served by post on a corporation or firm. Subsection (1) deals with the service of a notice on a factory or mine or quarry inspector. Subsection (2) deals with the service of a notice on any person other than a factory or mine or quarry inspector, and states that it may be served or given by delivering it to him or by leaving it at his proper address or by post. Subsection (3) deals with the service of a notice in the case of a corporation or firm and states whom it may be served on. But it may be served by reference to subsection (2), that is, by post, if required.
To me, with my limited intelligence, the Minister's explanation is not readily intelligible. It would appear from a straightforward reading of the clause that "any such notice" in subsections (2) and (3) means "a notice required or authorised by or by virtue of this Act" the rest of subsection (1) not being incorporated by the phrase "any such notice". The Amendment which I am moving should settle this question beyond doubt. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 5, after ("given") insert ("or sent by post.")—(Lord Milverton.)
LORD HAWKE: I should have thought this was a very dangerous Amendment to accept. In this country we are in the habit of assuming that letters posted will reach their destination. But there are many capital cities in the world where it is extremely unusual for letters to reach their destination, at any rate within reasonable time, and where other methods of personal delivery have to be put into action if it is desired to make certain that a package arrives. There are other parts of the world where the post is reasonably reliable but service by post is very easily avoided; and to cope with that problem there is a service known as "registered acknowledgment due." I should have thought that although it is rare for postal packets to get lost in this country, it can happen: and the loss of a postal packet serving notice on somebody to do something failing which he can incur some penalty, is usually a serious matter, which makes it advisable that any service by post should be done by registered post.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Or by recorded delivery, which is rather a cheaper and more efficient way of doing it these days.
LORD NEWTON: Much as I should like to, I doubt whether I can please both my noble friends Lord Milverton and Lord Hawke; but the Government certainly want to provide that notices may be served on corporations by post. We have in fact done so already in the Bill, and I hope to persuade my noble friend that his Amendment is not necessary. Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 79 deal with the manner in which notices may be served and include service by post. Subsection (2) refers to a person—this is in the last line on page 56. All that subsection (3) sets out to do is to explain who that person shall be in the case of a corporation or a firm. It says that any notice required to be served on a corporation or firm may be effected by serving the notice, and that includes service by post by virtue of subsection (2). I hope therefore that my noble friend will feel satisfied. I can assure him that I am satisfied that it is all right.
LORD MILVERTON: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I can hardly describe my state of mind as one of satisfaction, but I bow to the fact that Her Majesty's Government prefer a little obscurity to absolute clarity, and therefore beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, may I ask whether my noble friend could at the next stage of the Bill insert something to say that all service by post must be by recorded delivery or by registered post?—because, so far as I understand it, this Bill provides for various notices that can be given, and it is most important that they should reach the would-be recipient. He is otherwise involved in penalties, and so on. It is quite impossible to provide that any package sent by ordinary post either has or has not been received. I should have thought that from everybody's point of view it would be much more satisfactory if there were some method of registered or recorded delivery.
LORD CHAMPION: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, on this matter. Sitting in a magistrates' court, one is often told that notice served by post is not sufficient. Many times I have seen proceedings adjourned until the subsequent court simply because there is no proof that a summons has been served. It appears to me well that between now and Report stage the Minister should look at this matter and perhaps include the words suggested. It seems quite unfair that anyone who had not received this notice should be subject to the penalties that may well fall on him for not obeying a summons which he did not receive.
LORD NEWTON: Of course, I will consider what noble Lords have said on this point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 79 agreed to.
Clause 80 agreed to.
Clause 81 [Application to the Crown]:
LORD NEWTON: This Amendment and the following four Amendments are all consequential on Amendment No. 62. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 27, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(6)").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 34, leave out the third ("and").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 35, after ("30(4)(b)") insert ("and the second reference in section 30(6)").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON: I beg to move this Amendment also.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 39, leave out the third ("and")—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON: I beg to move Amendment No. 100.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 40, after ("30(4)(b)") insert ("and for the second reference thereto in section 30(6)").—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARRINGTON: This Amendment is consequential on Amendments Nos. 77 and 80, which your Lordships have already accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 3, leave out from ("onwards") to end of line 5 and insert ("and subsections (5) to (14) had been omitted; and an exemption of any such premises from a requirement imposed by a provision of this Act may be granted under the said section 46 despite the fact that the provision imposing the requirement is not in force in relation to the premises.").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 82 and 83 agreed to.
Clause 84 [Exclusion of application to premises occupied for transitory purposes]:
8.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved to add at end of the clause:
"or before the date of the hearing of the prosecution, whichever is the earlier".
The noble Viscount said: Clause 84 was either inserted in another place or at
898
any rate, extensively modified there. It provides a defence, not only in proceedings to recover damages but also in any prosecution for an alleged contravention of the terms of this Bill, for the person to show that his was a mobile office or shop or, alternatively, a fixed one and that in either case it was being used only temporarily for this purpose. If it is a mobile one, he may use it safely for six months; and if it is a temporary use of a permanent office or shop, he may use it safely for six weeks. If he shows that the use has stopped at the end of that period, then he is safe from prosecution.
What worried my noble friends and myself about this was what would happen if he was prosecuted before the end of the six weeks or six months. In that case it would be impossible for him to prove that the use ceased or had already ceased at the end of the requisite period, because the requisite period would not have already come to an end. Therefore, I put down this Amendment to try to clarify the matter. I must confess that I think I have in fact only made it worse, because I have placed a more stringent requirement on the person using these temporary premises in the case where it was possible to do it, and I have cut down the period he may do so with impunity.
I wonder whether it would not be better to have another look at this matter, to see whether a prosecution should not be brought before the end of six weeks or six months. My noble friend Lord Denham may say that this will be difficult in certain cases where there is a flagrant breach of the Bill, but not so flagrant as may be dealt with either under Clause 22 or Clause 32, which are not cases of prosecutions, but are subject to complaints by which an order to stop the use of the premises until the matter is put right can be obtained. In any case, I think there must be some method of dealing with these prosecutions which might fall before the end of the statutory period, because otherwise the whole object of the defence will be defeated. I confess that I am baffled how exactly to do it, but I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to look at this matter again to see whether it can be put right in some way. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 17, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD DENHAM: The object of this clause is to put temporary structures or temporarily occupied premises outside the scope of the Bill. As my noble friend has suggested, it also puts them beyond the provisions of Clauses 22 and 32, which means that there cannot be any immediate action taken in case of safety standards thought to be lacking. But the sort of thing my right honourable friend had in mind with this particular clause is the temporary structure that is put up on a building site, a temporary structure at the docks or a room temporarily used as an office for much the same thing. It was thought to be necessary to exclude these temporary offices from the provisions of the Bill.
As to my noble friend's worry that the defence of a man occupying one of these temporary offices in saying that he was going to occupy it for only six months, and if he were prosecuted before six months he would not be able to have that defence, because nobody would know whether he was going to cease occupation or not, my advice at the moment is that this would not happen. If anybody tried to take proceedings under this clause before the six months or six weeks, as the case might be, I am advised that the case would be adjourned. We are looking into this point again and making absolutely sure about it. If we are wrong, we will, of course, bring in something at a later stage. But that is my advice at the moment.
LORD SHEPHERD: Before the noble Viscount withdraws his Amendment, may I say this? I can see the point the noble Viscount has made for the exclusion of these premises from these provisions—six months in the case of one, and six weeks in the other. But within which period? Is it six months within twelve months, and six weeks within one year? Reading the clause very quickly, I do not see that there is any connection between the six months and six weeks with any other period. I think it would be wrong that we should create a loophole whereby you can get a temporary period of six months and close the place down for six weeks, and then move the wooden structure somewhere else.
LORD DENHAM: It says
" … beginning with the day on which they were occupied for that purpose. …"
It is for six months or six weeks from that day, as the case may be.
LORD SHEPHERD: Would it be possible for the occupier—the building site was a case the noble Lord quoted—after six months to close the place down and a week later to start it up again? Do the two six months run concurrently, or is it six months within twelve months?
LORD DENHAM: I do not think so, but I will certainly look into that point and let the noble Lord know.
LORD HAWKE: I think the point the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, visualises is of some particular rogue office employer who spends his time flitting from office to office staying five months and 29 days at each of them in order to avoid the provisions of this Bill. I really do not think that that is likely to happen.
LORD SHACKLETON: I feel that my noble friend is on to a point of substance. This is an issue which confronts anybody who is involved with administration. When a period of six months is stipulated, it is also necessary to state the period within which that six months applies. If one were to say, "in the course of any one year" it would become much clearer. My noble friend's point is surely that it would be possible, as this clause is at present drawn, to vacate such an office for one day and then reopen it. I may have misunderstood these words. I think the clause is not clearly defined, both in regard to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, or the point which my noble friend Lord Shepherd has made. I do not want to press it at this stage. I had been inclined to speak on the Question, That the clause stand part, but I understand that the Government are prepared to look into this point. It is a fact that if you are imposing a restriction you must state the period within which it applies, either by suing that it cannot be reopened again, or by saying, "not more than six months in any single year", otherwise it would be possible completely to defeat the purpose of the clause.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Before my noble friend replies, I would

901
say that I think a number of points have emerged. For one thing, if this clause is intended to deal with items like contractors' huts, there is nothing in it which says so. It can deal with any office of any sort or kind, so far as I can make out, which is used temporarily over a period within this Bill. Secondly, if it is intended to deal with buildings like contractors' huts, does it follow that, because the hut is on one building site for five months and 29 days, and is then removed to another one, the six months then starts again? There are any number of difficulties about the definition of "movable structure"—even if, I may say, you spell "movable" with only one "e"—which have caused difficulties in other parts of the law. It seems to me that this provision is full of loopholes.
My noble friend Lord Denham further worried me because he suggested (I do not know whether this is my fault) that the words "any prosecution" also applied to the emergency measures under Clauses 22 and 32. Those, of course, are proceedings in the magistrates' courts by way of a complaint, and they deal with premises which are quite unfit to be occupied for these purposes and have to be closed temporarily until matters are put right. If this is also meant to come within the word "prosecution" it means to say that there is going to be a long period of time in which there might be a serious fire during which magistrates can do nothing about this at all. If "prosecution"—which I do not think is a term of art (although I may be wrong; and I shall look in the Magistrates' Courts Act)—means only a summons as a result of an information, then it is presumably all right; but I feel that this is another point which ought to be checked, otherwise those two provisions in Clauses 22 and 32 will not apply to those premises. I hope that my noble friend will have a comprehensive look at this clause and try to bring out much more clearly what it is intended to apply.
LORD HAWKE: I hope that, in saying he will look at these things, he will not seek to bring this whole paraphernalia of this very complicated Bill to bear on temporary huts on temporary sites.
LORD CARRINGTON: I really think that this clause is all right. I think the
902
point which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, makes is answered, in that the purpose of the occupation is what matters and not the time; so that if the occupier left for a day and then re-occupied it for the same purpose it would be covered by the Bill. The time would count because of the purpose. It is the purpose which matters, not the time.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I hope, none the less, that my noble friend will look at it again. I think it is possible to take a builder's hut from place to place and use it for six months in each without offending against this particular clause.
LORD SHACKLETON: Does the noble Lord mean that the hut will be unusable for ever after if it is used for the same purpose, or if the same person uses it for the same purpose? I think that the noble Lord might take a further look at this and give a rather more forthcoming assurance than he has yet given.
LORD CARRINGTON: Of course it will be looked at again. But I think it is perfectly clear. It is perfectly clear to me; but if it is not to the noble Lord I will look at it again.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: With great respect, I think this is more complicated than my noble friend imagines; because in the case of a builder's hut there is some difficulty as to whether it is the same structure as it was in the first place after it has been taken down and put up on another site. This point has arisen in rating matters, and it becomes very difficult to say whether it is the same structure as it was before. In that case it becomes a new structure and is given six months' exemption. I do not think this is covered by the clause.
LORD CARRINGTON: My noble friend talks as if the Parliamentary draftsmen and the whole Ministry of Labour and the Government were complete fools and that he was the only person who had ever read the Bill. I do not think this is so; but I will certainly look at it again.
LORD SHACKLETON: I only think that at this late stage of the Committee the noble Lord might be a little more controlled in his remarks. It is the duty

903
of Parliament to examine these things. It would not be the first time that Parliamentary draftsmen, who are very able people and work very hard, have missed a point. There have been a large number brought in in this Bill. I think, so far as Parliamentary draftsmen are concerned, that the First Lord has not been a successful defender of them.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.0 p.m.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved to add to the clause.
"(2) The foregoing subsection shall not apply to a prosecution for an offence consisting in a failure to comply with an obligation imposed under section 49(1) of this Act to notify the appropriate authority that persons would be employed to work in any premises; but in any such prosecution it shall be a defence to prove that the persons in question were employed to work in the premises while they were ocupied as mentioned in the foregoing subsection."
The noble Lord said: The provisions of Clause 84, we now know, if we did not know before, relate to premises occupied for transitory purposes and do not at present provide a defence against an offence committed under subsection (1) of Clause 49. This is because the obligation in this subsection requires an employer to register the proposed employment of persons in offices, shops or railway premises before he begins to employ them. In the case of such an offence, it would not be possible to prove (as required by Clause 84) that at the time of the alleged contravention the premises were occupied for a temporary purpose during a period beginning with the first day of occupation and ending six months or six weeks later as the case may be. The new subsection proposed in the Amendment I am moving adapts Clause 84 to the requirements of Clause 49, with the result that an occupier would have a defence. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 17, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Newton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 85 to 87 agreed to.
Clause 88 [Interpretation]:
LORD SHEPHERD: It is with some trepidation that I move this Amendment. It is consequential on the Amendment that the Government accepted on Clause 18. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, leave out lines 3 and 4.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 88, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 89 [Short title, commencement, extent and repeal]:
8.57 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved to add to subsection (4):
"Provided that any such repeal of any provision of the Shops Act 1950 shall not extend to any premises excepted from the operation of this Act by section 2 of this Act."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment, although it looks a harmless one, is in fact quite a substantial one. Your Lordships will recall that we spent a considerable time discussing Clause 2 of this Bill, which exempted from the provisions of the Bill premises in which only employers' relatives or out-workers work. In the course of the discussion on it, I think it must have been apparent to every one of your Lordships that this is a very peculiar, purely sentimental and rather pointless clause of the Bill. If it had been proposed to extend this exemption to small businesses of a kind for which there are powers for exemption, it would have been understandable. I would not only repeat that it seems to me quite extraordinary to limit this to this narrow group of family relations, and then suddenly find, because the wife gets ill and she has to send for her sister to work and help out, immediately the full force of the Bill begins to apply.
I think it is a pity that this clause is in the Bill, and we shall probably want to talk about it further on the Report stage. But what is more significant—and this is the purpose of this Amendment—is that certain provisions of the 1950 Shops Act which hitherto had applied to these family premises are now to be repealed. It is quite logical to repeal those particular sections of the 1950 Shops Act so far as all those

905
premises which are covered by this particular Bill are concerned. But the family premises were not so covered, and when we look at the old Shops Act we see that Sections 37 to 39—and my remarks are mainly directed to these—had some quite important provisions which, apparently, have been worked satisfactorily, or if they have not been worked they have caused no trouble; but I suspect they have been worked and they have been a useful residual power for the last twelve years. These relate to a number of matters, some of which are covered in more detail more satisfactorily in this Bill, and in my view it would have been better if this Bill had applied to those family premises.
But I would ask your Lordships to consider what we are now removing from the Statute Book which has hitherto applied to these premises. First of all, under Section 37 of the Shops Act, 1950, there was provision in regard to providing seats behind the counter. That has always been an important part of the Shops Act and is surely just as applicable in a family business as elsewhere. If we are met once again with the argument that families can be trusted to look after their own, I would only remind your Lordships again of the number of abuses of a more acute kind which finally find their way into the courts as the result of a criminal offence. I see absolutely no reason why this perfectly reasonable provision should not apply to family shops. The provisions of that section have apparently been worked, unless the Government can show us otherwise, quite satisfactorily for twelve years.
Then there are also provisions for sanitary and other arrangements in shops. It seems to me that proper sanitation in any shop is a matter that is also in the interests of the general public. It may well be that the noble Lord can tell us that powers to cope with this are in the hands of sanitary inspectors and others. Furthermore, there are powers under Section 38 of the Shops Act to grant exemptions if this be necessary. But it is surely desirable in the public interest that there should be proper sanitary arrangements. There was also a requirement that there should be provided and maintained suitable and sufficient facilities for the taking of meals, and for washing and so on. These may seem to be small matters, but
906
Parliament has seen fit to apply them and to incorporate them in legislation; they have been in existence for twelve years, and we have been given no reason why they should be removed.
This brings me to my final point, in which I really suggest that the Government have, to put it mildly, been less than frank. It may be that the noble Lord who is to reply can correct me on this, but I have not seen any statement of the intention not merely not to apply this proposed Bill to these particular premises, but to remove certain protections that existed in the past. It seems to me that this particular clause has passed through another place without their being aware of the implications of the particular proposal, and without discussion taking place on it. If this is really so, then unless the Government can show me that they have explained its effect and made clear that it did exempt these premises I think we should do well at this stage to pass Amendment No. 104 and give an opportunity for further consideration in another place. In my view, the Government have made a mistake in putting Clause 2 into this Bill at all; I am sure it is a nonsense. But I think they have made a bigger mistake by a lack of frankness which could almost amount to a deception of Parliament in their failure to explain what the consequences of this particular proposal were. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 6, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Shackleton.)
LORD NEWTON: I think I ought to begin by saying that I really cannot accept any suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that the Government have been guilty of not being sufficiently frank or forthcoming, or guilty of any deception about this Bill. I do not think he has any grounds for putting forward that complaint. The Shops Act—
LORD SHACKLETON: Before the noble Lord leaves that point, would he tell us on what occasion, and when, the effect of this was explained in either House of Parliament?
LORD NEWTON: I have no idea whether it was explained or not in the other place.
LORD SHACKLETON: Do you not read Hansard?
LORD NEWTON: I am not a Member of the other place. It is not my duty to answer for what is said or is not said in another place. What I ought to say, I think, is that the Shops Act is mainly about such matters as closing hours, hours of employment of young persons, and Sunday trading, and all those provisions will continue to apply to family shops as they do now. What the Bill does is to repeal those sections of the Shops Act which are concerned with seats, ventilation, temperature, sanitary conveniences, lighting, and washing and eating facilities, all of which subjects, as the noble Lord himself recognised, are dealt with in much greater detail either in this Bill or in the regulations which are to be made under it. It is, therefore perfectly logical to repeal the effect of the Shops Act in so far as it is only a mirror of what this Bill provides for in premises other than family businesses.
When we were discussing Clause 2 and the Amendments thereto moved by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, I explained that the Government decided as a matter of principle that family businesses should be excluded from the scope of the Bill because they do not think it is desirable to extend the opportunities for inspectors to go into family premises. Quite obviously, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, does not accept that. For instance, he described this principle on which we are taking our stand as purely sentimental, peculiar and, I think, unnecessary—I may have forgotten the last adjective. He is perfectly entitled to take that view, and I explained at least once when debating Clause 2 and the Amendments on it that on a matter of principle like this people can have different opinions, and they are perfectly entitled to hold them. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, took part in any of our Amendments to Clause 2.
LORD SHACKLETON: Yes, I did.
LORD NEWTON: The noble Lord did. I beg his pardon. I thought he did not. That makes my task rather easier because he will have heard what I then had to say. What he is doing by putting forward this Amendment this evening is to reiterate the arguments on general
908
grounds for deleting Clause 2 altogether from the Bill. That is how the position seems to me. If one accepts that it is right that Clause 2 should be in the Bill, it is perfectly logical that we should repeal these sections of the Shops Act. There we are. This is a matter on which there is a difference of opinion between the two sides of your Lordships' House, and, short of repeating all my arguments over again, I do not think there is anything more I can say, except possibly this. So far as cleanliness in food shops is concerned, from the point of view of the public, this is dealt with in regulations under the Food and Drugs Act, and they, of course, apply to family businesses as to any other. So I must recommend to your Lordships that this Amendment of the noble Lord should be rejected.
9.15 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: In dealing with Clause 2 the Government have repeatedly had a very weak case. The noble Lord, Lord Newton (perhaps I may have his attention for one moment), said that the Government felt it would be wrong for them to interfere with family businesses; that it would be wrong for them to stand between a father and a son, daughter or granddaughter as the case may be, who is employed by him. The noble Lord said that again tonight. Yet, he may recall that in the debate we had on Clause 2, when we were dealing with exemptions on grounds of safety, my noble friend Lord Champion drew the noble Lord's attention to the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, where the Government exercise power even in family businesses, to see that the provisions in regard to health and safety are in fact complied with. The noble Lord cannot have it all ways.
I suspect that the real reason why Clause 2 is included is that the Government feel that if this class of premises is included the machinery of local authority will be completely and utterly swamped. We accept that there is going to be a considerable task to be undertaken. We also accept that, even twelve months after the passing of the Act, even with this period of grace, there is bound to be some time lapse before all these objectives in the classes which the Bill covers are attained. That is no ground whatsoever for completely excluding one class from the provisions of the Bill. It

909
may take longer. It may mean that the Ministry will have power to say, "We will deal first with those that are employing people outside the family." But can the noble Lord say why, other than, a desire not to interfere with the families, the Government wish to exclude for ever, or for as long as this Act is in force, this class of business?
I can think of some businesses which are run by a widow who is being forced to employ people. People with businesses like that will be placed in a more difficult position as regards complying with these provisions than will some family businesses. Some of these family businesses are extremely prosperous. I cannot see why we should give this advantage purely and simply to a family business, perhaps to the disadvantage of a competitor who, because he employs other persons, must comply with the provisions of this Bill. The Government's case right through has not been one of consistency. I do not know whether my noble friend wishes to press this Amendment this evening. If he does, I shall be very willing to support him, in spite of the numbers arrayed against us. But, apart from what my noble friend will do, I hope that the Government will again consider this matter.
LORD NEWTON: The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has again advanced the arguments which were advanced in the debate on Clause 2, in rebuttal of the arguments which I advanced the other day, and which I have advanced again. I doubt whether we shall get very much further simply by arguing about it. We are being perfectly consistent in resisting any attempt to bring family businesses under the umbrella of this Bill. I do not know how many members of the public at large, who are not members of family businesses, or who move in the world of local authorities, or the Factories Act or the Shops Act, know that under the Shops Act the State can interfere with family arrangements about lavatories and washing facilities. I do not know how many members of the public realise that; but I should have thought that most people who discovered that for the first time would think it wrong. I am expressing my own point of view, as one must over a matter of principle like this. I should have thought that most people who heard about it for
910
the first time would think it wrong that the State should interfere with family arrangements about those things. In fact, I rather doubt whether these provisions of the Shops Act have ever been strictly enforced—but that is as it may be.
We have taken our stand on the belief that close members of a family who are responsible for other members of their family are likely to be as concerned about the safety, health and welfare of their relations as the State, or the local authority or an inspector. Quite obviously, noble Lords opposite do not agree about that. They have taken a rather dimmer view of family relationships, and what flows from them. They are entitled to do that. But there we are: this is a difference of opinion on a matter of principle, and I do not think it will be resolved by argument. If the noble Lords opposite wish to divide the Committee upon it, I would suggest that they do so.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am sorry, but I have to continue a bit with this argument, because I think the noble Lord must begin to realise that he is in a weak position, so far as logic, and, indeed, I would say, so far as knowledge of the 1950 Shops Act, is concerned. He is unable to tell us whether these sections have ever been enforced. I doubt very much whether the Government know how far the 1950 Shops Act is, in fact, enforced; and the argument that he thinks that it is perfectly safe to leave family businesses outside the scope of this sort of provision is an argument in favour of repealing the whole of the Shops Act in relation to the family business.
LORD NEWTON: With great respect, it does not leave them outside, and I explained that it does not in relation to hours of work, Sunday closing and things like that.
LORD SHACKLETON: Why is it that one can trust a family in regard to seats, but not in regard to the hours of work? It is an absolute absurdity. I would remind the noble Lord of some of the provisions in the Shops Act. These relate, of course, not merely to hours of work but to things like statutory half-holidays, the keeping of records, the obligation to post the Shops Act and the day off. I do not know whether they are enforced, but the

911
Government should know. Certainly the shops inspectors should know; and I am surprised that, knowing that this Amendment was down, some inquiry was not made with regard to the operation of this section and, indeed, other sections of the Shops Act. It is not only those matters; Wages Council Orders also apply. These involve a number of technical measures, and it is clearly necessary for shops inspectors to help in carrying them out. And suddenly, for no reason that has been given to either House, these particular sections of the Act have been removed.
I ask your Lordships to consider whether it is fair to apply the whole of this Bill to a small business alongside a business which happens to be composed of members of a family. If we are wanting to achieve some sort of justice for the small shopkeeper, surely either this Act should be applied to all or there should be a general exemption of small shopkeepers. I have already pointed out that if a small butcher's shop happens to employ one assistant butcher—as, in fact, does the butcher's shop in my own village—the whole rigour of the Act would
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
apply to that, and the only compulsion of this particular clause is that, if they want to be freed of the need to provide fire certificates, and that sort of thing, they would have to sack that non-family, assistant butcher.
I would suggest that either the Government were unaware of what they were doing—and this seems to be the most likely explanation—or they have totally failed to be honest and straightforward about it. Until now, no explanation has at any time been given that these particular sections of the Shops Act were to be repealed. Unless there is some explanation, or some willingness to recognise this, even though there may be very few noble Lords on this side of the House, I propose to divide the Committee. I should hope that some of your Lordships will consider the case which the Government have put forward as so weak (and this is not just an argument on families: it affects small shopkeepers of all kinds) you may consider coming into the Division Lobby with us.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 8; Not-Contents, 27.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hereford, V.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Gosford, E.

Shackleton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mills, V.

Boston, L.

Fortescue, E.

Newall, L.

Carrington, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Newton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Davidson, V.

Hastings, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Denham, L.

Hawke, L.

Somers, L.

Derwent, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Devonshire, D.

Lothian, M.

Windlesham, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Yarborough, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past nine o'clock.