Lords Sitting of 30 April 1963

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

STRAND TRAFFIC CONTROL
2.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider making it illegal for eastbound traffic along the Strand to turn right into Savoy Court.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, my right honourable friend has already considered the matter. This turn does cause some difficulty at certain times, but my right honourable friend cannot see how he can prohibit it without causing worse difficulties at other points, and particularly at the congested junction of the Strand and the northern approach to Waterloo Bridge.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that turning right in this way into the Court, which is in fact the front drive into the Savoy Hotel, seriously holds up traffic, particularly at the luncheon hour, and necessitates the special station of a policeman on point duty at the junction? Are Her Majesty's Government further aware that the Savoy Hotel has another, alternative and perfectly good entrance on the Embankment?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government were naturally aware of the matters to which the noble Earl refers, and I think I have in fact covered his supplementary questions in my original Answer.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Lord would agree, would he not, that right-hand turns are one of the chief causes of traffic conges-
78
tion and accidents, in company with quite a number of other things, and that right-hand turns in thickly populated areas of the kind to which this Question refers will one day have to be prohibited?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am naturally aware of the troubles caused by right-hand turns. I should like to assure the noble Lord that the solution does not lie, as was suggested recently by my son, in altering the Construction and Use Regulations so that motor cars have no right lock.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is exercising a certain privilege in this matter? Would he adopt the same attitude for a small, obscure, unknown hotel?
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: The noble Lady has taken away my supplementary, which was almost in the same terms. I was going to ask whether Her Majesty's Government would adopt the same attitude if the road in question were not the approach to the Savoy Hotel but to Rowton House.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this question has been viewed entirely as a traffic matter. I should think that if the circumstances of the hotel which lies at the end of Savoy Court were different, perhaps there would not be the same volume of traffic.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I missed the opening part of the Answer, for which I apologise, but perhaps I may ask just one question. In view of the diversions that are already made owing to one-way streets, and the very great delays and difficulties in remembering where they are, would it not be possible for traffic to go round Aldwych and via the Embankment?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, of course anybody who so wishes is free to use the Embankment entrance. Whether that would be among the problems which would be created by the solution of another, I cannot exactly say. All I know is that the prohibition of this particular right turn would create other and, as we see it, outweighing

79
problems at other points. I think that perhaps one of the most fortunate aspects of this question is that when this particular right turn is causing trouble is not at the peak traffic times in the Strand.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should have thought the contrary, if you consider the theatre traffic as well at the particular time that people dine.
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords; but the peak is still the normal peak—around nine o'clock in the morning or six o'clock in the evening.

FUTURE BUSINESS
2.40 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, in view of the large number of speakers who wish to take part in to-morrow's debate on the Beeching Report, it has been agreed through the usual channels that the debate should extend over two days. On the second day, Thursday, we shall resume the debate after the Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning Bill, on which there are only a very few speakers. It would be much appreciated if your Lordships would indicate on which of the two days you would prefer to speak, so that we may, so far as possible, meet noble Lords' wishes. The Weights and Measures Bill, which was to have been taken in Committee again on Thursday, will now be taken on Monday next, May 6, and, I hope, concluded on Tuesday, May 7.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think I may have been under a misunderstanding in this matter with regard to Wednesday and Thursday. I am particularly happy to have the extra time for the debate which begins to-morrow, but I should have thought it a much better arrangement, from our point of view, if we could complete the debate as first Business on Thursday.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, this matter was discussed through the usual channels, and I understood that noble Lords opposite were happy with the arrangement I outlined. But perhaps we could consider it further.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, that is the best way, to consider it further. I had rather understood it the other way. My understanding may have been faulty, but at the same time I do not like this arrangement.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
2.45 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, this Bill continues the series of Statute Law Revision Bills, the first of which was introduced almost exactly a century ago. Previous Bills in the last decade were introduced in 1953, 1958, 1959 and 1960. By lapse of time and otherwise many statutory provisions become obsolete or spent, and it is expedient that they should be repealed. Your Lordships will not expect me to describe all the dead provisions which the Bill proposes to repeal. These will fall to be examined, in the usual way, by the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills, whose Report will be laid in due course. After that, the House will have an opportunity of considering the Bill as amended by the Joint Committee, and it will be open to your Lordships to comment on any points of detail which may arise. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, there is very little I want to say about this Bill. We are in spring and the Government are evidently getting a passion for spring cleaning. Last week we had a spring-cleaning Bill which was not very welcome. This particular piece of spring cleaning, I am glad to say, is not particularly objected to. It does not upset anybody or anything. It merely tidies up; but not all tidying up is necessarily good in itself and I do not want a Bill to be

81
accepted merely because it is a tidying-up Bill. We have had quite a number of similar Bills in the past few years, and some of these Statutes we are repealing go back to the reign of Edward II and Edward III. Does it mean that they have been missed by previous Committees? Surely there is no greater reason why they should be repealed to-day than, say, in 1952 or 1954 and so on. Are there many more of these still to be examined to see whether they are out of date to-day?
One other point. Speaking as a practising lawyer I would mention that it is not always convenient to have particular sections of Acts repealed when the whole Act is still in force. I wonder whether there is any alternative to that. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is much more experienced in this kind of thing than I would be; but it seems to me that when one is having to look up an Act it is quite inconvenient not to know or to be able to find out readily whether or not particular sections have been repealed. I should be glad if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would give his views on that point. But this, of course, is normal practice and I do not wish to be difficult in any way.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's concluding remarks. I am sure he will agree that it is desirable to clear all dead wood from the Statute Book as speedily as one can. Sometimes Statutes become obsolete at different times and it is not possible to have one complete, comprehensive measure to clear away everything, because things become obsolete as the years go on and therefore it is necessary to have a number of Statute Law Revision Bills from time to time. When one clears, one wants to take off the Statute Book anything that really has become dead wood, and I am sure that this is a process that your Lordships will welcome.
With regard to the second point, the fact that it may be tiresome to have to find out whether a section of a Statute is still in force when another Act repeals a particular section of that Act, I see the force of that objection but I do not at the moment see any particular way in which that difficulty can be met. But when considering a Statute it is even more tiresome if one has to consider a
82
section and does not realise that it has become a completely obsolete section. It is the case, with modern reference books available, that it is not difficult to discover which particular provision of old Statutes have been repealed by Statute Law Revision. But I will give consideration to the point that the noble Lord has made, and I am grateful for the welcome he has given to this measure.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to make a remark about this tidying-up process. A tidying-up Bill was mentioned by my noble friend just now. So far as I can see, that was not exactly tidying up. It is restoring legislation of a past nature, legislation of 1902 for education, and almost of 1889. Can we be sure that the tidying up will not all follow that process?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I was not wishing to enter into any controversy with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, but I would not regard the measure debated for two days last week as just a tidying-up measure; I thought it was a progressive and constructive measure. I do not want to argue about that, and I am grateful to the noble Earl for correcting the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in that respect.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

PROTECTION OF DEPOSITORS BILL
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 21 [Amendment of Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1958]:
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DERWENT)THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DERWENT) moved to add to the clause:
"( ) In the proviso to subsection (3) of section 14 of the said Act of 1958, for the words from 'any arrangements' to the end there shall be substituted the words 'any such arrangements as are mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the last preceding section'."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the need for this Amendment arises from an oversight. Clause 21 makes two amendments to the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1958. The second of

83
these amendments consists of substituting a new paragraph for the existing paragraph (b) in subsection (1) of Section 13. The words of the existing paragraph are repeated in the second half of the proviso to subsection (3) of Section 14 and therefore should have been replaced there by the new version of paragraph (b) of Section 13(1). The amendment, which is purely consequential on the second amendment made by Clause 21, achieves this by making the second part of the proviso refer back to paragraph (b) of Section 13(1). I hope that I have made myself clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 27, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL
2.52 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [United Kingdom primary standards and authorised copies thereof]:
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (2)(a), after "redetermined" to insert:
"by reference to the relevant unit of measurement in Section 1, and as defined in Schedule 1 to this Act".
The noble Lord said: Clause 1 changes the legal definition of the yard from what it is at present—namely, the distance between two lines on the Imperial standard bar—to ·9144 metres exactly. The length of the yard will thus be increased by ·00012 of an inch, about one eight-thousandth of an inch. This change leaves me, and no doubt other noble Lords, fairly calm; but it is a change of some significance to precision engineers engaged in manufacturing gauges, tools and measuring instruments. Therefore it is imperative that the ques-
84
tion of the standard in the Bill should leave no room for doubt. Unfortunately, doubts and misconceptions have already arisen owing to the temporary retention in the Bill of the old or existing Imperial standard yard bar, under the title of the "United Kingdom primary standard" of the yard, which has always legally represented the yard until now, but no longer does so under this Bill. It will be one eight-thousandth of an inch shorter, and the present marking of the standard yard at 62° Fahrenheit, mentioned in Part I of Schedule 2, will therefore no longer be valid.
The subsection of this clause which I seek to amend has been drafted to meet this very point, but in practice it has not proved sufficiently clear and explicit to precision engineers who have to make fine measuring instruments. The meaning of the word "value" in line 11 is doubtful, but, much more important, there is no mention of the basis of reference for determining or redetermining the primary standard. Curiously enough, paragraph (b) of the subsection we are considering sets out methods of defining copies of primary standards and the less important secondary and tertiary standards can be determined or redetermined in accordance with the provisions of Clause 3. To precision engineers this is a serious omission, which might well be an oversight. Surely it is essential that we should be explicit, not only about determining copies of primary standards and secondary and tertiary standards, but also about determining or redetermining the actual primary standards themselves. Hence the need for my Amendment and the need to refer to the relevant unit of measurement in Clause 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 12 after "redetermined" insert the said words.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD DERWENT: The effect of this Amendment would be to require the Board of Trade from time to time, as they thought necessary, to cause the value of each of the United Kingdom primary standards, referred to in subsection (1) of this clause, to be determined or redetermined by reference to the relevant unit of measurement in Section 1 in such manner as the Board directed. Subsection (2) of Clause 2 constitutes an instruction to the Board of Trade.

85
It does not affect any member of the public and it prescribes no offences. It has been said that the expression "value" in sub-paragraph (a) is ambiguous, in that it could be taken to refer to the intrinsic value of the standards or to their value in the hierarchy of standards established by the Bill. However, the Board of Trade, to whom this instruction is given, are perfectly well aware that it means value in terms of the units referred to in Clause 1 of the Bill and defined in Schedule I. They are also aware that, although the standards referred to in Clause 2(1) are called "primary" standards, their values, at any rate in the cases of the pound and the kilogramme, will be derived from the international kilogramme, which will therefore be the fundamental standard. This is not an oversight.
In the view of Her Majesty's Government, this Amendment Is quite unnecessary and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it, because I must resist it, as this subsection deals merely with instructions to the Board of Trade, who are quite well aware of the implications of the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 17 agreed to.
Clause 18:
Keepers of public equipment to hold certificate
18.—(1) No person shall attend to any weighing or measuring by means of weighing or measuring equipment available for use by the public, being a weighing or measuring demanded by a member of the public and for which a charge is made, other than a weighing or measuring of a person, unless he holds a certificate from a chief inspector that he has sufficient knowledge for the proper performance of his duties.
(2) Any person refused such a certificate as aforesaid by a chief inspector may appeal against the refusal to the Board, who may if they think fit direct the chief inspector to grant the certificate.
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON moved, in subsection (1), to omit "certificate from a chief inspector that he" and to substitute:
"licence from a local weights and measures authority and has satisfied that authority that he is competent and"
The noble Lord said: In speaking to this Amendment, with your Lordships'
86
permission I should like to speak also on Nos. 3, 4 and 5, which are closely interconnected with it. Clause 18 of the Bill provides that every keeper of weighing or measuring equipment available for use by the public other than personal weighing machines, must hold a certificate granted by a chief inspector of weights and measures certifying that he has sufficient knowledge for the proper performance of his duties. It provides also for a right of appeal against the refusal of such inspector of such certificate to the Board of Trade, who may, if they think fit, direct the chief inspector to grant the certificate.
The Association of Municipal Corporations welcome the proposal to secure that every person who has to attend to public weighing equipment shall have sufficient technical knowledge, but they feel that the clause does not go far enough in certain respects which I shall mention. First of all, the proposal is for the granting of certificates to the effect that the holders have sufficient knowledge for the purpose of their duties, whereas in the view of the Association of Muncipal Corporations it would have been better to introduce a system of licensing on, say, a five-yearly basis, which would enable the question to be considered whether the licensee was still capable in every respect of continuing his duties. A licensing system would enable questions, not only of knowledge, but also of capacity in other respects—for instance, on mental, physical or moral grounds—to be taken into account. Further, as the clause is now drawn, there is no provision for reviewing or revoking a certificate, even if it seems that for some reason the holder is no longer possessed of such knowledge for the proper performance of his duties—for example, by reason of technical development in the apparatus he has to control.
These Amendments, therefore, seek to replace the provision for certificate-holding by a provision for licensing. The clause, as drawn, also merely requires sufficient knowledge on the part of the keeper; but I would submit that it is most important that these public officers should also be persons of good character, persons who have not been convicted of any offence importing fraud and who are not suffering from any physical or mental incapacity for the work. The Amendments, therefore, seek to add a requirement of competence to that of knowledge.
A further purpose of these Amendments is to delete the provision that a keeper of public weighing or measuring equipment should be authorised to act by virtue of a document issued by a chief inspector of weights and measures, and to provide instead that he should be authorised by a document issued by the appropriate weights and measures authority. This is in accordance with the general provisions for the administration of weights and measures functions. The appropriate local authority, surely, are the weights and measures authority, and they, and not one of their officers, should issue licences.
The Amendments also seek to empower a local weights and measures authority to grant a licence to be in force for such time as the authority think necessary. This would enable the authority to review the circumstances from time to time, having regard to the additional requirement of competence on the part of the licensee which these Amendments seek to introduce. The Amendments also seek to delete the provision that the Board of Trade may direct a chief inspector of weights and measures to grant a certificate under this clause. Surely, it is fundamentally objectionable that the Board should be empowered to give directions over the head of a local authority to one of their employees. If a specific power to give such a direction is needed, it should be in relation to the local weights and measures authority. I would also submit that no special provision of this kind is required, since, if there is to be an appeal to the Board against the refusal of a licence, it must be inherent in such an appeal that the Board may determine whether the licence was properly refused. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 8, leave out from ("a") to ("has") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Milverton.)
LORD STONHAM: We on this side of the House would support these Amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton. It seems to be an extremely strong case, not only for a licence instead of a certificate but for the licence to be issued by the local authority. With the certificate there is no provision for revocation, and while not for one moment suggesting that any chief inspector would
88
issue a certificate to an unsuitable person. I think it is important that these certificates should be kept under review. Therefore, they will be much better handled if they are licences. The person holding one might become unfit; he might lose his sight, or become disabled in some other way which would make him incapable of exercising these functions. A licensing system would get over this difficulty, and would also provide more adequately for the right of appeal. I hope, therefore, that the Government will Lind these Amendments acceptable.
EARL FERRERS: Like my noble friend Lord Milverton, I should like to take Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 together. As at present drafted, subsection (1) of this clause requires every keeper of public weighing or measuring equipment to hold a certificate from a chief inspector of weights and measures that he has sufficient knowledge for the proper performance of his duties. The effect of the first of my noble friend's Amendments to this clause would be to replace the certificate of knowledge of his duties which is issued by a chief inspector, with a licence which would be issued by the local weights and measures authority. Under this Amendment the local authority would have to satisfy themselves that the applicant not only had the knowledge but also was competent, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, pointed out. Therefore, my noble friend is really suggesting two things: first, that the issuing authority should not be the chief inspector but the local weights and measures authority, and, secondly, that the certificate of knowledge should be changed into a licence which should cover not only knowledge but also competence.
May I deal with the first part first, as to who should issue the certificate or licence? Someone has to test the applicants before a certificate is issued, and since the chief inspector is made generally responsible for weights and measures administration by Clause 41(3), it is sensible to provide that he should be responsible for the testing and issue of the certificates. Any possibility of abuse in the way in which this is carried out is provided against by the right of appeal in subsection (2) of this clause. There seems no good reason, therefore, for substituting the words, "local weights and measures authority" for "chief inspector".

89
The question whether "competence" should be added to "knowledge" is one which has been debated before in your Lordships' House on the earlier Bill, and also in another place on the present Bill. It is argued that a man could have sufficient knowledge to carry out certain duties, but at the same time be incompetent to do so satisfactorily. As the Bill is at present drafted, the testing of applicants would, in practice, be predominantly concerned with technical matters, such as the applicant's understanding of the type of equipment, or measuring equipment, with which he may have to deal, together with its correct operation and maintenance. It would be largely of a practical nature and would, therefore, cover the applicant's competence only in a very limited sense of the word.
A certificate of competence, however, could imply a judgment on matters outside the practical and theoretical matters connected with the operation of weighing or measuring equipment. It might, for example, be held to refer to character and personal qualities. A chief inspector, who would presumably carry out the test on behalf of his local authority, might feel that it was his duty to inquire into an applicant's employment record, or possibly seek references from his previous employer with regard to his general reliability and integrity. In the Government's view, it would be quite wrong for a Bill of this nature to allow matters of this kind to be a factor in deciding whether a certificate should be given. In our view, the person who should judge the reliability of an individual employed as a public weighing machine keeper should be the employer of that person, and the chief inspector is not the employer. Nor, necessarily, is the local authority. The applicant might, for example, be employed by a company, and to require a local authority or an inspector to investigate anything more than an applicant's knowledge could involve, I would suggest, an unwarrantable interference in the private affairs of the applicant.
LORD STONHAM: In view of the point the noble Earl has been making for the last few minutes, will he say whether anyone has suggested that any of these inquiries should be made other than by the chief inspector or by the
90
local authority? In any case, is not the chief inspector in all these things likely to act as the agent of the local authority?
EARL FERRERS: The terms of the Amendment are that the person's competence should be investigated. What I am suggesting to the noble Lord by the word "competence" is that possibly it includes a rather wider range of things than he may have in mind, and the effect of the Amendment, if accepted, would be to encourage the chief inspector, or the local authority, whichever it may be, to go into matters a good deal more deeply than a normal certificate should require and, indeed, more deeply than it would be right, in the Government's view, for a local authority to do. In short, all that should be determined is whether the person concerned has sufficient technical knowledge to perform his duties, and the man's suitability for employment should be a matter for his employer.
The second Amendment would enable a local authority to issue a licence for a limited period. This would mean that a licensee would presumably have to satisfy the local authority that he still possessed sufficient knowledge for the proper performance of his duties. This would be little different from a requirement that the applicant should have to re-sit a Board of Trade examination to ensure that he continued to have sufficient skill and knowledge to perform his duties, and would, in the Government's view, be unreasonable. The fact that a person holds a certificate of knowledge does not, of course, mean that an employer will permanently and in all circumstances consider his continued employment suitable.
The last Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, would delete the power of the Board, if they thought fit, to direct a chief inspector to grant a certificate which he had earlier refused. This power was not included in the earlier Bill, but has been put in recently to fill an obvious gap. There would be little point in providing, as the last Amendment would do, for the person to appeal to the Board of Trade if, having done so, the Board could then do nothing about it. The Government hold the view that without the words in lines 12 and 13 it is by no means certain that the Board would be entitled

91
to direct an inspector to grant a certificate which he had previously refused. I have tried to put the points as clearly as I can, and I regret that I cannot suggest that your Lordships accept the Amendments which my noble friend has put down.
LORD MILVERTON: There is one point which I should like to ask the noble Earl further to elucidate. He did not deal with the point which I tried to make, which was that it seems to me highly improper that the Board of Trade should issue direct instructions to a subordinate of the local authority and not to the authority itself—in other words, ignore the person under whom the man is working.
EARL FERRERS: If I understand the noble Lord correctly, I think he means that it is wrong for the Board of Trade to tell the chief inspector what the examination is to be. Is that the noble Lord's point?
LORD MILVERTON: To direct him to issue a licence.
EARL FERRERS: That, of course, is a form of safeguard, so that should any applicant have his application turned down, he may appeal to the Board of Trade. If the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted, he could appeal to the Board of Trade and the Board would have no powers at all to make any alteration. There would be little point in appealing.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: May I ask my noble friend this question? Are none of these people self-employed? It seems to me that much of his argument rested on the fact that an employer will not continue to employ someone who is incapable of carrying out his duties. I strongly suspect that in many rural areas the keepers of the local weighbridges are the local coal merchants, or people of that sort, who are self-employed. Surely, there ought to be some provision for the revocation of these certificates if a man becomes mentally deranged, or has some such fault, and is quite incapable of continuing to conduct his duties. Admittedly, he would have no customers.
EARL FERRERS: I do not think the noble Duke is quite right. I hesitate to say "all", but certainly the great pro-
92
portion of people (and I think all) are employed, and not self-employed, people.
LORD SILKIN: I think we ought to bear in mind that this Bill is supposed to be for the protection of the public. The public are very often required to pay for goods on the basis of a public weighing certificate, and I think the public are entitled to be quite sure that everything possible is being done to ensure that the person responsible for issuing these certificates is both technically competent and competent in all other respects. I do not want to suggest that under the present system there is anything wrong, but there is sometimes a lurking suspicion that the weights which are issued by public weighing machine offices are not always correct. One would like to remove these suspicions and I think they would be greatly removed if, first of all, the local authorities, rather than chief inspectors, were the persons taking responsibility for the granting of a licence, and also that they should take a wider view of their responsibility than merely technical competence. Also, I think they should have the right to review licences from time to time. In other words, I think that all the Amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, has moved are good and in the interests of the general public. I hope that there will not be a flat refusal to reconsider this, although I do realise it has been looked at before.
EARL FERRERS: I appreciate the view of the noble Lord but, of course, I think that the difference between us is that he wants a licence which says that a person is not only capable technically of knowing how to operate the machine but also that his character and such is in accord with certain directions. What the Government consider is that the suitability of an applicant for a post from the point of view of his character and integrity should be a matter for his employers, whether it is a local authority or a private person, and as far as the issue of any certificate is concerned, it should be issued purely on the basis of whether he has sufficient knowledge to operate the machine effectively. It is our view that any consideration of a man's individual integrity should surely be a matter for his employer, and if his employer is a local authority obviously they will take that into account.
LORD SILKIN: If the employer is responsible for granting the licence, then I think the public would have confidence that, in the granting of the licence, the local authority has taken all factors into account. I cannot remember whether those words are in or not. If there is any objection to talking about the competence as being too vague, I do not mind, but I should be more satisfied if the local authority took the responsibility for granting the licence rather than a chief inspector.
LORD DERWENT: If I may say so with all respect, I think the noble Lord is not quite understanding how the Bill works. Under Clause 41, subsection (3), the chief inspector is made generally responsible for weights and measures administration, and it therefore seems sensible to provide that he should be responsible for the testing and issuing of the certificate. He is the man who has to do the testing, and therefore he should do the issuing of the certificate. He is the technical expert. In case there is any abuse, a right of appeal is given in subsection (2) of Clause 18. But the Government feel that these two things should be kept quite distinct. The man's moral character and suitability for employment should be a matter to be dealt with by the local authority or his employer, whoever it may be; but the purely technical certificate should be granted by the chief inspector, who is generally responsible for weights and measures administration. That is the way we see it.
LORD LATHAM: Noble Lords and others have referred to the right of appeal and procedure of appeal. What is the position if a certificate has been issued to a person which ought not to have been issued? What remedy has the local authority or a chief inspector?
LORD DERWENT: That is a point I have not considered, but I think I am right in saying that on report to the Board of Trade the certificate can be revoked. But I wish the noble Lord would let me write to him about it, because I am not certain where that appears in the Bill.
LORD LATHAM: Is there a power of recall, and if so, by whom?
LORD DERWENT: There is certainly a power the other way round. I am sorry I cannot answer the noble Lord off hand, but I will write to him.
LORD SILKIN: Is that not relevant to the particular matter we are discussing? Supposing a chief inspector has wrongly or wrongfully issued a certificate, or certain facts come to his knowledge after he has issued a certificate and, if he had known them before, he would not have issued a certificate. Is not my noble friend's question quite relevant to that? There is no machinery for withdrawing the certificate, and would it not therefore be better that the certificate, in spite of Clause 41 (of which I was aware), should still be granted by the local authority?
LORD DERWENT: Does the noble Lord have in mind a man who has in fact passed his examination by a chief inspector but should not have passed it or where a chief inspector has fraudulently given him it?
LORD SILKIN: I can visualise all sorts of circumstances. But supposing you are dealing with a man who has been previously convicted of bribery—take that sort of case—and the inspector was not aware of it but subsequently becomes aware of it. Is it not a fact that in cases like that the local authority should have the right to grant the licence and should have the right to review?
LORD DERWENT: In that particular case the local authority have the right because they are the employer; and that is not dealing with competence but with the man's character, which is for the employer. Somebody who has previously been a bad character is not necessarily incompetent in so far as the chief inspector is concerned; but, as an employer, the local authority might well want to get rid of him. That is a different question. On the other point, the particular point which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, raised, I am rather of the opinion that there is no power or revocation in that narrow case. I wish he would let me look into that and inform him at the next stage of the Bill.
LORD STONHAM: I do not know what the noble Lord's intentions are

95
with regard to these particular Amendments, but it is quite obvious that whatever is decided now we shall have to return to this matter again at a later stage.
LORD CONESFORD: I was impressed by the point put by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that there is a lot to be said for there being adequate powers of revocation, whatever else is provided. I gather my noble friend says this is, in effect, provided for by the fact that the authority will be his employers. I dare say this is so in many cases but, when I look at the drafting of the Bill, this is by no means obvious. In fact, both the Ministers I think have referred to the person affected by subsection (1) as the "keeper" of the public equipment, and it is perfectly true that the word "keeper" does appear in the marginal note. But it does not appear in the text at all and the person who comes within the prohibition of subsection (1), so far as I can see, need not be employed by anybody.
LORD DERWENT: They must of course be employed by the local weights and measures office or somebody authorised by them.
LORD CONESFORD: I dare say my noble friend is right, but I very much hope, as others who have spoken on this clause hope, that the whole matter of the drafting of this clause will be rather carefully looked at.
LORD MILVERTON: If the noble Lord will undertake to reconsider the points which have been made over these Amendments, I am prepared now, with that assurance, to withdraw them. But if he is not prepared to give that assurance, I am afraid I cannot ask leave to withdraw them.
LORD DERWENT: I am prepared to undertake to have another look, first of all, at the drafting, which one is always prepared to look at; and, secondly, at the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, in regard to particular cases where power of revocation does not exist That I will look at. But I cannot give any undertaking as to the general principle of the weights and measures chief inspector being the man who examines technically, and the employer
96
who deals with the suitability of the man other than technically. I cannot give an undertaking to look at that.
LORD LATHAM: My point was not raised with regard to any particular case. It is on the general point where a certificate is issued and ought to be withdrawn.
LORD DERWENT: I shall look at the question of the power of revocation as a general point.
LORD MILVERTON: The point I am most concerned with is the question of who is the weights and measures authority. Is the noble Lord not prepared to have another look at the point whether it should be the weights and measures authority, and not the chief inspector, who is responsible for the licence?
LORD DERWENT: I am afraid I can give no undertaking to the noble Lord that we will look again at the case of technical testing and the granting of technical licences as opposed to the actual employment of a man. We believe this is the right solution and we are prepared to stand by it.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: While the noble Lord is looking at this, will he bear in mind that it would certainly be a very unusual provision if a certificate showing that a man had technical qualifications could be revoked at any time? While there are a large number of occupations in this country in which people have technical qualifications of one kind or another—lawyers, doctors, accountants and very many others—I do not know that there is general provision that certificates which have been granted to people of that kind can be revoked at any time. No doubt they can be disqualified from practice in some cases because they have committed offences, but they are not disqualified by reason of the fact that they no longer possess qualifications for exercising the occupation to the same measure as they did when they passed the examinations.
LORD DERWENT: May I make myself perfectly clear in case there is any misunderstanding? I said I would look into this power of revocation. There is already a power of revocation in the Bill in an appeal by the candidate (can we call him?) against the chief inspector's refusal of a certificate. What the noble

97
Lord, Lord Latham, raised, as I understood him, was the point that if the chief inspector has wrongfully given a certificate, then it would appear at the moment, whether deliberately or otherwise, that there is no power of revocation. Of course, once someone has been given the certificate rightly, the Government too feel that you cannot re-examine him as to his competence. The employer may want to get rid of a man for other reasons, but you cannot continue repeatedly to examine him. We are quite certain we ought not to have power of revocation in that case. But when a certificate has been wrongfully given, and that may be dishonestly or otherwise, then there appears to be no power of revocation in the Bill, and I should like to look to see whether something can be done about that. I am not suggesting that once a man has been rightly given his certificate of competence one should be able to revoke it.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Since we look like having to divide on this matter, may I ask my noble friend one more question? Are these people always employed by a local authority?—because, if so, it seems to me the whole clause of this Bill is entirely unnecessary, as I am sure no local authority would employ someone they knew to be incapable of doing the job. If they are not always employed by a local authority, why are the Government so sure an employer would take steps to get rid of a man who was unsuitable in respect of character as opposed to knowledge?
LORD DERWENT: Of course, they are not always employed by a local authority. The Government wish to differentiate between two sorts of circumstances. An employer may employ the man because he is suitable in other ways—indeed he may at a later stage become unsuitable in other ways, in which case they may want to get rid of him—but where a technical certificate is required to show his competence it is the chief inspector who gives him that certificate. He is not necessarily employed by local authorities. Perhaps I have not quite taken the noble Duke's point.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Many private employers continue to employ people although they know perfectly well they are not satisfactory for their job.
98
Surely in a job like this, where there is great responsibility and an enormous chance of cheating the public, they ought not to continue to be allowed to do so. Therefore, I should have thought it a good idea for the man's character to be taken into account and for the local authority to have some control over people who are in this position of responsibility, in regard not only to their knowledge but also to their character.
LORD DERWENT: The noble Duke is making a very nice speech which has nothing to do with this clause or the Amendment.
LORD MILVERTON: At a later date I propose to return to this subject.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
Clause 21:
Transactions in particular goods
21.—
(2) The Board may by order make provision with respect to any goods specified in the order for all or any of the following purposes, that is to say, to ensure that, except in such cases or in such circumstances as may be so specified, the goods in question—

(a) are sold only by quantity expressed in such manner as may be so specified; or

(b) are pre-packed, or are otherwise made up in or on a container for sale or for delivery after sale, only if the container is marked with such information as to the quantity of the goods as may be so specified; or

(e) are sold by means of, or are offered or exposed for sale in, a vending machine only if there is displayed on or in the machine—

(i) such information as to the quantity of the goods in question comprised in each item for sale by means of that machine as may be so specified; and

(ii) a statement of the name and address of the seller; or

3.38 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved in subsection (2)(b), after "specified" to insert:
"including, in the case of goods in liquid, the net drained weight of the solid content"
The noble Lord said: Clause 21 lays down general rules regarding various categories of goods to be sold in certain ways and, where appropriate, marked in

99
certain ways so that the buyer is informed at the time of the purchase what weight or quantity he is buying. My Amendment regarding net drained weight of pre-packed goods draws attention to the fact that there is no specific protection in the Bill for the purchaser of goods packed in liquid. The purchaser therefore has no means of knowing the solid content of the tin—fruit, vegetables, meat or fish—that he is buying. This can, and I am quite sure does, lend itself to precisely the type of fraud which this Bill is designed to prevent.
I agree that in theory at least (I have no doubt the noble Lord will make this point) there are powers in Clause 21 which would enable the Board of Trade to make regulations regarding net drained weight of tins. But I do not believe they will make such regulations without this Amendment. Recently the Institute of Weights and Measures Inspectorate published the results of an inquiry relating to the solid part of the contents of tins of fruit, vegetables, fish and sausages. The results are quite startling—not the sausages, the results of the inquiry.
It was found that raspberries varied from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. solid; tins of strawberries were found to be 30 per cent. strawberry and 70 per cent. liquid. Tinned pineapple varied from 50 to 85 per cent. solid content; tins of processed peas were less than half full of peas. I have heard a lot of controversy about the meat content of sausages, but the particular tins of frankfurter sausages were only half full of sausages and the rest was brine. I would confess I was astonished about this. Thus, it is quite impossible, in those circumstances, for the buyer to judge relative values, or to know whether he is being swindled, until it is too late. A 10-oz. tin of raspberries costing 1s. 10d. and containing (to quote an actual case) barely three ounces of fruit is dear compared to a tin of the same size containing double the quantity of fruit. But the buyer cannot know, and I hope that your Lordships would agree that the buyer should be given a chance of knowing these things.
Accepted, and eventually converted into a regulation, this Amendment would stop the fraud which is particularly rampant with imported goods, and it
100
would protect the consumer. I hope that no one would pretend that it would create unfair difficulties for the vendor or the processor, because he must know in advance the weight of the food that he is putting in the tin; otherwise he cannot fix his price. The weights and measures inspectorate in the counties found no difficulty in assessing the drained weight of the tins they examined; they just adopted the commonsense course of draining off the liquid and weighing what was left. There was no need to dehydrate the contents, and my Amendment does not ask for dry weight but for drained weight.
As everyone knows, the business of canning fruit, vegetables, fish and some types of meat products has grown enormously and is still growing, and it would leave a vast field wide open to fraud unless we insist with these pre-packed goods that the net drained weight should be on the tin and that the buyer knows precisely what he is paying for. I am always quite sure that the case for my Amendments is unanswerable, otherwise I should not move them. But I always wonder precisely what the noble Lord who is going to reply is going to "cook up" in response. I think that this particular Amendment is first-class. It is something that ought to be in the Bill, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 16, after ("specified") insert the said words.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD HAWKE: I am sure the noble Lord's intentions are entirely honourable, but I do not think they are practicable. He instanced the case of the inspector of weights and measures who, in order to get out some data, drained certain goods. No doubt that was perfectly sufficient to satisfy the weights and measures inspector that he was coming to a right figure. If this Amendment is inserted in the Bill this matter is going to have to stand up in a court of law, and reputations will be at stake and heavy penalties will be involved. How, in these circumstances, can one define what is the net drained weight of anything? He instanced fruits in syrup, and so on. One knows that only too often there is a lot of syrup and not much fruit. The tins can be shaken and

101
you can sometimes get a clue. But when the fruit starts off with a water content of anything up to 90 per cent. of its own, when do you say that it has been drained of the added water and still retains its original water? Some of these products can be stood on a draining board, a sieve, or something of the kind, and they will go on dripping for days. At what stage do you bring down the curtain and say, "That has now been drained"? I think it is a fair description to say that it is an honourable Amendment, but it is an utterly impracticable Amendment.
LORD CONESFORD: In addition to the points raised by my noble friend Lord Hawke, there is a point of drafting which puzzles me greatly. However honourable the purpose of this Amendment may be, what it refers to is "the net drained weight". There are various things that can be drained, but not, I should have thought, the weight. I should have thought that almost everything else might be drained. You might drain the package, you might drain the goods: but draining the weight is an operation which seems to me quite extraordinary, and one which will introduce the utmost difficulty into the Bill. Although, in the end, it would be rather useful for my profession, I think that really the Amendment should be resisted.
LORD DERWENT: May I say something first of all about this series of Amendments to Clause 21, although not in regard to this particular Amendment? I regret to inform the Committee that, in regard to some of the other Amendments, I shall be replying at considerable length. They are rather important and I do not think they ought to be cursorily dismissed, except possibly this first one, which in my submission is unnecessary.
The proposed Amendment would specify that the information which the Board of Trade may by order require to be marked on the container of prepacked goods may include the net drained weight—that is what it says—in the case of goods in liquid. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is quite right—I am going to quote the clause at him in saying that the Amendment is unnecessary. Subsection (2)(b) of Clause 21 gives the Board power to provide by order that containers shall be marked with such information about quantity as the Board
102
shall specify, and this includes net drained weight—it really is a phrase that means something. Clause 21(4)(f) gives the Board power to provide the way in which net drained weight and other quantities shall be determined.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: May I ask the noble Lord whether it would not be possible, and more readily understood, to have "drained net weight"? That seems to be sensible.
LORD DERWENT: I think that while we are arguing on this point I ought to keep to the phraseology of the Amendment, because even if we have to alter the phrase later we all know what we are talking about—at least, I think we do. Some food packers already state the drained weight, particularly where the food is packed in brine, and there is nothing in the Bill to prevent them from continuing to do so provided that where the liquid is also a food a statement of the total quantity of food is also marked on the container.
LORD HAWKE: May I ask a question here? They state it on the package; but if you want to prosecute them sometimes you have to prove that they are right. How do you work the reverse? How do you prove what the net drained weight was?
LORD DERWENT: Because the method of measuring the net drained weight will be laid down by the Board. This is really why I am resisting this Amendment. As my noble friend Lord Hawke has implied, at any rate, it would not be appropriate to lay down a requirement of universal application because the packing of these goods and the way they are put together varies. That is why the provision has been made in Clause 21 for the Board to require the information in those cases where it may be appropriate, and the information that they will require and how it is to be provided will be made by regulation by the Board. I give an undertaking that the Government will use this power in those cases where they consider it necessary and in those cases where they consider it practicable.
3.50 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I am somewhat encouraged, although I shall read it again very carefully, by the last sentence

103
uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, but I do not think these technical difficulties and the humorous references that have been made are really an answer. I am fully aware that most fruit and vegetables contain a lot of water; in fact, on occasions I have given the actual percentages of water which they contain. I will satisfy myself by repeating a remark of the late Lord Hudson, when he said that the most expensive way to buy water was to buy a cucumber. That no doubt is quite right.
I am grateful to Lord Derwent for reassuring his noble friend Lord Cones-ford that the words which I have used in my Amendment were in fact in the Bill and that they meant something to the Board of Trade. We have been used to being amused, and indeed edified, on many occasions by Lord Cones-ford in his dealings with words. He has delved so much into the uses of words, which as he has said have been a very good thing for the legal profession, that he has obviously been able to retire very early on the proceeds. In regard to the net drained weight, I say seriously to your Lordships, that if the phrase means something to the Board of Trade, if chief inspectors have carried out investigations in a number of counties and have also found no difficulty, I do not think it is necessary to allow things to drain for days because by their very nature they always contain a certain amount of water.
What we are up against in regard to the growers of home-produced food whose produce is canned is that they are in competition with canned imported produce where the actual fruit, meat or vegetable content is very much less in relation to the size of the tin. This enables the tin to be sold for less money. It is therefore a point of importance that we should try to protect the consumers from being diddled in that way. They will continue to buy on size, particularly when for the same or a larger size the price is lower. They cannot look inside the tin. All they can do if they are caught once is to try not to be caught again by the same brand or the same mark.
I should have thought that since the expression "net drained weight" is a
104
term accepted by the Board of Trade there would be nothing technically wrong with this Amendment, and if the Board of Trade are determined to introduce regulations covering this point I see no reason why they should not emphasise that determination by accepting this Amendment. Could the noble Lord enlarge a little on the last part of his observations, and give some further assurance on this point?
LORD CONESFORD: May I also ask a question of my noble friend? Of course "net drained weight" may be a very convenient phrase if it is somewhere defined. Is it defined? Most of us know or can guess what "pre-packed" means. Nevertheless, pre-packed is defined in Clause 58 of the Bill. To me, at any rate—it may be because I am foolish—the conception of a net drained weight is at least as difficult as the meaning of the word "pre-packed". If the phrase is to be used I suggest it needs defining.
LORD DERWENT: I will have a look at that last point raised by my noble friend. It is so well understood in general trading circles that I had not realised that somebody as clever as my noble friend could misunderstand it. At any rate, I will look at it.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: As we are always talking about the housewife as if she is extremely ignorant and has to be protected, may I ask how she is to understand this extraordinary language?
LORD DERWENT: As I have said, I will take another look at it. I think most housewives would understand it rather better, perhaps, than most of your Lordships, because it is a commonly-used phrase.
I will repeat to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that, to begin with, this Amendment is unnecessary because we have the powers. To make a general regulation is only permissive in this case, and it is apt to be misleading because there may well be certain things for which it is difficult to prescribe correct regulations. But I again give this undertaking. We now have a Consumer Council and we have other methods of being told when things are going wrong. The undertaking is that the Government will use the power

105
under this clause to insist on correct marking when they consider it necessary. In some cases it is already done, to take the simplest example, and it would not be necessary to make a special regulation; but where it is considered necessary and practicable we will do it. I cannot go further than give that undertaking, and therefore I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD LATHAM: May we be told what will be the agency or the means by which the Board of Trade will give effect to what the noble Lord has just said?
LORD DERWENT: It will be done by regulation.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
3.57 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (d) to insert:
"(e) are not sold in containers or wrappings which falsely or misleadingly suggest that the quantity of goods they contain is substantially greater than in fact it is".
The noble Lord said: I agree with the noble Lord that the next three Amendments are all very important; and, although they are in a sense part of the same clause, they are separate points and I therefore will deal with them separately. It might be argued that because this is a Weights and Measures Bill the net weight or the quantity printed on a package is sufficient to ensure that the buyer will not be misled or deceived, but unfortunately there are many large firms who devote their undoubted talents and their considerable financial resources to proving that such simple thoughts are "strictly for the birds"—in deference to the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, I did not say "strictly for the housewife".
These firms use a larger carton than their competitors. They call it a "jumbo" or "giant" size, and they advertise it as such with the implication that the customer is getting more for her money. They then recover their overheads and enhance their profits by leaving a third of the carton unfilled. This method has proved so popular with detergent manufacturers that one unctuously honest manufacturer of detergent who does not conform to the general rule tells us constantly on television precisely how much more powder his packet contains. There are many variants of this part-empty
106
packet swindle, which I call "the swindle straightforward." Apart from the deception of the housewife, what an incredibly wasteful and dishonest way to do business!
Then there is "the swindle seductive", which is very prevalent in perfume packaging. Ten pounds seems a lot to pay for the small package, but the salesman says that the scent is the real stuff and it is such a lovely large box, all blue and gold, and measures 5 inches by 2 inches. Therefore the customer thinks there must be a good deal of scent inside, and, as it is a gift, he does not open it to see; but when it is opened the actual phial is about 1 inch by ½ an inch.
There is next another broad category of deception which I call the "swindle secretive". It is general with cosmetics, where it is not infrequently combined with the seductive, in a large never-ending packet. But sometimes with cosmetics, to show there is no deception, they actually let you see the jar. What you cannot see, of course, is the false or hollow bottom, or the lid in depth gallantly concealing the microscopic quantity of goods inside. All these methods are expressly designed to mislead the buyer into thinking that he or she is getting a larger quantity of goods than in fact he is. There are methods constantly practised by firms whose names are household words and who in this respect are all swindlers.
When we debated this matter two years ago the Government, if I remember rightly—and I have no doubt the noble Lord will remember—argued that it was outside the scope of the Bill; but they have had two years to think about it and to find, as I hope, a way to put it inside the Bill. I also hope that the noble Lord will not argue that this is a matter which would be better dealt with in legislation dealing with false and misleading advertising. The Molony Committee declared specifically that deceptive packaging must be dealt with in weights and measures legislation. I quote the relevant paragraph in the Report, which says:
"Containers which deceive as to how much they hold are an understandable source of grievance…. We consider that undoubtedly there is here an abuse that ought to be checked. Goods provoking the complaint range from cheap articles which everyone buys regularly, e.g., cereals, detergents, to

107
those which are bought less frequently but are expensive, e.g., cosmetics. But we are bound to regard the problem as one of weights and measures since what is needed is true information as to how much the purchaser is getting and at what rate he is paying for the quantity supplied."
That is precisely in line with my Amendment. I do not think it is any good for anyone to suggest that the Consumer Council can really do anything about it; or that there is the least likelihood in the foreseeable future that we are going to get another Bill that will deal with it. I think it is now or not at all.
Most of the firms who follow this kind of practice—and we all know that they do—are big and powerful, and they will not alter their ways unless the law tells them that they must. I think that if in this matter the Government really mean business, and if in this Bill they really mean to protect the consumer, they will accept this Amendment and find ways, by means of regulations, to bring to an end the dishonest practices to which it refers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) are not sold in containers or wrappings which falsely or misleadingly suggest that the quantity of goods they contain is substantially greater than in fact it is; or").—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD HAWKE: This is an old friend. We argued this matter at enormous length and I supported the principle of it, if I remember aright, about two years ago. Undoubtedly I continue to support the principle of it, if we can find a way of getting at the rogues and letting off the honest men, because the dividing line is not going to be very easy to find. It is a compromise in the way you define the word "substantially", because from the manufacturing point of view it is quite impracticable to have a container that always exactly fits the quantity of goods you are selling. In many lines of business, as the manufacturing costs and costs of raw materials fluctuate in price it is more convenient for the manufacturer—and I think better liked by the consumer—if the price remains constant and the quantity is altered, such as with bars of chocolate and so on. There is also the question of the very loose, powdery sort of things which, when you fill the packets in the factory, take up much more space
108
than they do later on when they have had a good shaking down. So nobody could say that these people who do that are not people who intend to be honest.
On the other hand the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has dealt with those who are undoubted rogues. They have deceit in their hearts, and if by this Bill we can stop them from doing these things in any way, I am all in favour of it. But I find it very difficult to believe that that word "substantially" would be properly construed by the lawyers in a court of law so as to enable the rogues to be got at and the honest men to escape. But I am no lawyer and I await some comment from the law in due course.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I was glad to hear the terms in which the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has just spoken, because I wanted to make a plea rather on similar lines. I think this is a difficult matter to legislate for—I fully accept that—but if we can do anything about it we shall be fulfilling a useful service. I am quite sure that everybody in this House, and I should think everybody outside, would agree that this sort of thing causes very great annoyance. There is nothing more irritating than to feel that one has been "had". We may be stupid for having been "had" but to buy something which really conveys a false impression is very irritating.
I would make a confession here about my sex, although this probably does not help the cause. With regard to cosmetics, scent, or anything like that, when I see something that looks really attractive, I am much more drawn towards it than if it does not, and I am prepared to pay for that attraction. But what I should regard as a deliberate fraud are the things mentioned by my noble friend Lord Stonham—the false bottoms that you get in so many jars or the articles for which you should be able to get refills but for which you cannot get refills. It is that sort of thing that we are after.
I have been looking at the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Second Reading debate here, and I was interested in noting what the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, had to say about the difficulty of giving net weight for detergents. I know we are not talking about net weight but I think it might be permitted here, because one of the examples which has caused the

109
most irritation in this regard in the past has been the monster packets and the giant sizes of detergents. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, said that he had talked to people, to grocers, who had stressed to him the difficulties of giving net weight for washing powders or detergents which were subject to evaporation.
We have had this problem for a very long time, and we are now finding that one detergent manufacturer, whom I do not propose to name, is now able to tell people what is in the packet. He is doing it by the simple process of putting the net weight low enough to allow for all the evaporation which must take place before the shelves are cleared. It can be done and I think it is very necessary that it should be done. But even if we could have the net weight on everything, it is only one aspect of this particular problem of packaging. There is the excessive size of tooth-paste cartons and, as I said myself on Second Reading, I have heard many men complaining about the cartons in which their shaving cream is packed. I should expect the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, to know more about that than I do, but I have heard a good many complaints about it.
What I think is really needed, if it is within the powers of the Government draftsmen to draft it, is some regulation which prevents sharp tricks. That is what I think this House would welcome: something that would prevent this deceitful design, or these false signs. Various consumer bodies have said to me from time to time about this particular Bill that they feel it is too restricted in its limitation to net weight. They do not feel that this problem of packaging is dealt with. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, is not in her place now, but she was here earlier; and I say that because, as I said on Second Reading, I think this is something that would have to go to the Consumer Council. I feel that, however much we talk here (and I should have thought we were all, including the Minister, at one on this particular point) about this particular problem, it is no use our alerting the public to this problem unless the Bill contains adequate powers for dealing with it.
I do not know whether the Minister can give me a direct answer to this question, but I am told by consumer bodies that the present clauses for dealing with
110
deceptive packaging are not adequate. They make the further point that it will be a very difficult job to decide just how deceptive packaging will be controlled at all under this Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to help us here. I should have thought he had the goodwill of the entire Committee in this matter. We want to prevent people from being "taken for a ride" by this type of deceitful package.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: At the risk of asking my noble friend what he remembers from two years ago, I would put in a plea particularly for things that children are likely to buy, such a chocolate. I can still remember the disappointment when, during the war, one bought a 1 lb. box of chocolates—one's sweet ration for about a month, I think it was—and found that half or two-thirds of the bottom layer was filled with, not straw but plain paper. I know that that sort of thing still goes on. In fact, sometimes now the whole of the bottom layer appears to be filled entirely with packaging material. I was wondering whether my noble friend could agree to insert some provision such as this. I realise that the Board of Trade may never be able to frame a suitable order to make use of it. But one never knows: some time in the future they may feel that they can, and they would then regret that this provision had not been inserted in the Bill.
4.14 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: This is one of the Amendments to which, I am afraid, I shall have to reply at considerable length. As the noble Baroness has said, legislation on this particular point is difficult, to say the least of it; and this Amendment, though put down in the other place, was never debated. Therefore, one cannot be brief about it. I have nothing to say at the moment about chocolates, but may I just say one thing about perfumery (which I think is the technical description) and packets of detergents, as they have been particularly mentioned, before I come to the main body of what I have got to say? The Bill will require the net weight to be marked on packets of detergents and the net weight or volume on perfumery. For perfumery, I think that in most cases it will be the volume.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord will remember that I made the point that I know that; but that will not be the protection for which I am asking.
LORD DERWENT: I was merely clearing up those points now in order not to interrupt the main argument.
This Amendment would give the Board of Trade power to control the nature of all containers or wrappers used for selling any goods, and, in particular, would enable them to prohibit "deceptive" containers. That, I think, is the purpose of the Amendment. There are two effective weapons which the Bill provides already against deception in packaged goods. First, the Bill protects the consumer from being deceived as to the quantity and contents of a package by ensuring that he is informed of the quantity of goods within the package. The most usual way is to require the container to be marked with the quantity of its contents by weight, by measure or by number, as the case may be, depending on what is inside. The manner of marking—and this is important—will have to conform to regulations made under subsection (4) of Clause 21; and, as in the case of the existing regulations applying to pre-packed foods, the new regulations will require the markings to be prominently placed on the container or wrapper, and in a manner in which they are capable of being easily read by the prospective purchaser. The regulations will include all those points.
The second method of protecting the consumer against deception is to require certain goods to be pre-packed in a limited range of quantities only, as well as requiring them to be marked with their quantity. This the Bill does in the case of a considerable number of commodities in everyday use. In some cases where it would be unreasonable to require the packer to mark the quantity on the container the Bill provides protection by requiring the quantity of the goods to be made known to the buyer at or before sale. It may be argued that consumers generally cannot be bothered to read weight markings on packets, but simply go by the size of the package, and that such consumers must be protected by controlling every detail of the packaging. The Government do not accept that the majority
112
of consumers are deceived quite so easily as that.
Again, I must ask noble Lords whether it is not jumping to conclusions to assume that, because a packet is not filled to the brim at the time when the consumer purchases it, this is clear evidence that the packer has been attempting to deceive the consumer. It may or may not be; but it is certainly no evidence as such. In a number of cases where packages are filled to the top by the packer the contents may shake down and consolidate before they reach the consumer. In other cases the packer may intentionally and necessarily allow some air space at the top of the container because the contents are liable to swell, owing to changes in humidity and temperature, or because it helps to prevent spilling when the container is opened. So the fact that a packet is not filled does not necessarily mean fraud: it may even be necessary.
As the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have said, many of the complaints which have been made of deceptive packages have referred to detergents, cereal breakfast foods, and so on, and I would point out to noble Lords that the Bill will require these goods (and these goods especially, more than anything else) to be marked with their quantity; and in some cases to be packed in specified quantities only. The Government are satisfied that these requirements will give sufficient protection to the purchaser. The Board of Trade have power, moreover, to require other goods to be marked or packed in prescribed quantities should it appear to be in the consumer's interest to do so, and I can assure your Lordships that the Board will not hesitate to use these powers. If it is found that, in the consumer's interest, it is necessary to limit the size or number of types of packet of any particular article, regulations will be made accordingly.
May I also quote the Molony Committee, as did the noble Lord, Lord Stonham? There is a little sentence which he left out, I think, when he was quoting, from their Report. They say:
"We observe with interest and approval that the Weights and Measures (No. 2) Bill, like its predecessor, proposes that the Board of Trade shall have power to require by order…that specified packeted goods must carry an indication of quantity or shall only be sold in prescribed quantities."

113
In this paragraph 812 they referred very fully to this matter of deceptive containers. They, too, came to the conclusion that pre-packing only in prescribed quantities, or marking the weight or measure of the contents on the packet—one or the other; sometimes, perhaps, both—was the most suitable means of protecting the consumer. They accept that there are good reasons why traders should not be forced to display their goods in standard quantities as a general rule, and also record that there were indications that housewives sometimes prefer set prices with varying quantities, to set quantities at varying prices. That is what I am told; but the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, knows more about that than I. However, that is what we are informed and what the Molony Committee said.
We think that the powers we have under this clause are sufficient to protect the public and that the Amendment does not add anything to the powers. We intend to use those powers where particular cases are pointed out to us that need more stringent control and if we are agreed that control should be provided. I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw this Amendment, because I think we have all the power we need and we intend to use it.
LORD WALSTON: There is one aspect of this question on which the noble Lord can perhaps expand his remarks. This is the matter of vending machines which, so far as I know, has not been mentioned before. While it is perfectly true that in ordinary shops it is possible to see the quantity if it is put on the package, even if the package is somewhat misleading, it is possible in vending machines so to display the goods that the buyer does not see what weight of, for example, caramels, he is buying until he actually puts sixpence in the slot and brings out the package. He may then find only one or two inside, in spite of the packet's large size. Is that type of thing dealt with in any way in this Bill? Is there power to enforce that the quantity, where it has to be displayed, is displayed in such a way that the buyer can see it before he has paid his money? Or is that a matter of had luck at the moment?
LORD DERWENT: The subsection is (2)(e); and that gives power to the Board in regard to vending machines. They also will be controlled.
LORD STONHAM: I am glad I have given the noble Lord the opportunity of using an excellent speech which might otherwise have been wasted and which was prepared to be delivered in another place; but I am disappointed with the reply, which boils down to nothing more than, "We are satisfied we have these powers and intend to use them." But, again, it does not really convince me.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, made, I thought, the only criticism of substance when he asked what was the meaning of the word "substantially", but I would point out to the noble Lord that all the Amendment asks for is that the Board of Trade should take powers to make regulations. It seems to me to be quite reasonable to draft regulations whereby the relationship between the size of the contents and the size of the packet could be defined in terms of a minimum percentage. One could say, for example, that the size of the actual contents should not be less than 75 per cent.—I am not laying down a percentage; this is merely hypothetical—of the total cubic content of the package. I should have thought that was a reasonable definition of "substantially" in this kind of context. But we can all think of cases where the relationship between the actual size of the contents and of the package is in the ratio of one to four or one to five; it is definitely done in order to mislead. My noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry mentioned attractive packages. There is nothing in this Amendment against attractive packaging. Obviously it is right and proper for traders to make their goods look as attractive as possible. What we are against is that the package—attractive or not—should be so designed as to deceive the buyer, even though there are precautions as to the contents.
The noble Lord mentioned two weapons against deception. First, the buyer is informed on the package of the quantity of goods. But, as he is well aware—and my noble friend, Lord Walston, gave an example—very often the buyer has no means of knowing or of finding out beforehand what quantity is in the package although the net weight may be on it. As I shall point out in the next Amendment this is in practice a very slim protection.
The second weapon against deception mentioned by the noble Lord—and this

115
will be discussed again on another Amendment—is the manner of marking which will be laid down. Frankly, I think the protection foreshadowed in the regulations for marking, the power the Board of Trade has taken so far in that respect, is not very satisfactory unless they tend to accept our Amendment. Frankly, this is one of those things where we all know that deception deliberately takes place and people make large profits out of deceiving the public. We all know that, and it would seem to me that the Bill would be much stronger (and it would certainly convince me that the Board of Trade meant business on behalf of the consumer) if the Government would accept this Amendment and not say, "The powers are covered and there is no need to draw particular attention to them." In view of our discussions two years ago, I am convinced that we should draw further attention to this particular point.
LORD DERWENT: I think we really cannot go further than to say it will be easy for the purchaser to find out the net weight, volume or number of what he is buying. It will be easier when we go further and say that, in addition, goods may be sold only in certain specified quantities, so that anyone buys only one of two or three sizes. I am certain this Amendment gives us no further power and I very much doubt whether it is workable. If we are putting the weight or number or whatever it may on the package and it is a package which is not full for a variety of reasons—which may be perfectly proper reasons—then can you prosecute people for misleading, for having too big a package? Would it not be a sufficient defence to say: "This is not full because it travels better in this state. We are not misleading anyone." In a court of law this would not be workable. We follow the Molony Committee in this matter. We say that it must be possible for the purchaser to find out easily the weight, number or size of something he is buying. I do not think we can really go further than the Molony Committee's recommendation.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
4.30 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (d) to insert:
"( ) are not sold without the price per unit of quantity, in such terms as may be so
116
specified being made known to the buyer at or before such time as may be so specified".
The noble Lord said: I should like to make it perfectly clear that in this Amendment I am not insisting that all goods should be marked with the price per pound or ounce. The Amendment is designed to give direction to the Board of Trade that in their regulations they shall specify the class of goods in respect of which this information must be given. Naturally, I expect they would specify only those classes of goods where such marking was not practical. I would say that obviously this Amendment is what the right honourable gentleman the President of the Board of Trade thinks should be in the Bill. On the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 667, cal. 41]:
"We must, therefore, make sure that the customer knows how much is packaging and how much is product—… Only when she knows how much she is paying per ounce can she decide whether snowiness is worth it."
He was referring to detergents, but surely the principle is the same for all goods: because it is impossible for the housewife to compare values, and to know whether she is getting value for money, unless the price per oz. or per lb. is clearly marked on the goods she is buying.
On Sunday, I saw in one of the Sunday newspapers an advertisement of a well-known firm of biscuit manufacturers. It began:
"When you buy biscuits look for the weight on the packet. Price alone can be deceptive."
There was a photograph of their package of biscuits, with the price on it, and a finger pointing to the legend: "Half pound". The advertisement went on:
"To find the true value of a packet of biscuits, weight and price must be considered together. Not all packets weigh half a pound. At first sight, the price of the biscuits in the packet may seem to be low, but it might be surprisingly high. For example. 6 oz. for 9d. is 2s. lb., but a full half-pound of…biscuits for 11d. is only 1s. 10d. per lb."
That, of course, was an advertisement; and a very good one, too. But it draws attention to precisely this point: that weight just is not enough. I think that this kind of provision is most necessary for buyers across the counter, not only in the case of pre-packed goods, but also for other commodities like meat and fish. Many butchers, quite properly, exhibit joints which have a ticket on

117
them with the total price. If the weight and price per lb. are not also there, how is the buyer to know whether a joint marked 12s. 6d. is better value than one priced at, say, 15s.?
I am not asking for more work for the trader, because—unless he proceeds by inspiration—he has to weigh the joint before he can work out his price. This principle is of particular importance in the purchasing of meat and fish and, indeed, of all goods weighed from bulk in the presence of the buyer. One sees chickens in the shops from 8s. 6d. upwards; but almost never is the price per lb. or weight shown. Other things being equal, the only fair way of buying is by weight. If she is obliged to buy on marked prices, the housewife is likely to judge on apparent size.
Some supermarkets already give the information for which I am asking in the Amendment. They regard it as good business. I do not do a great deal of shopping but sometimes I accompany my wife on the Saturday morning shopping expedition. Although my mental arithmetic is about average, and the scales at the butcher's fairly and honestly show the weight on both sides, I have never yet discovered the price per lb. of the joint we have been buying; nor has any housewife of my acquaintance. Their usual answer to the question of how much per lb. they have paid is, "I don't know, but I know it was too much". They are probably wrong in saying that; but it is the fact that they do not know. I cannot see anything against this Amendment and I can see everything in its favour. It does not insist that the price per unit and weight must be made known on all goods. It asks merely that the Board of Trade take power so that they can insist, where practicable and appropriate, that this information must be given. I hope that the Amendment will commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 23, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Stonham.)
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I hope that we shall be able to get somewhere on this Amendment and that, when he comes to reply, the Minister of State will be a little more understanding than was the Parliamentary Secretary in
118
another place, when replying to this point in Committee. I do not really think that he understood, whether deliberately or unconsciously, what the Amendment was trying to do. I feel strongly on this matter. I agree with every word that has been said by my noble friend Lord Stonham. He has said already that in this Amendment we are trying to instruct the Board of Trade to see by regulation that the price per unit of quantity is marked on the goods in all circumstances (and I would underline the next few words) where this is desirable and appropriate.
On Second Reading in another place, the President of the Board of Trade, as I am sure the Minister of State knows, made some remarks, referred to by my noble friend Lord Stonham, which seem to me to underline the necessity for accepting the Amendment that we are now moving. I submit to your Lordships that we cannot go much further in making a case for this Amendment than to quote the President of the Board of Trade. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 667, col. 41]:
"We must, therefore, make sure that the customer knows how much is packaging and how much is product—…—and that he gets what he thinks he is paying for."
He wont on:
"The Bill goes a long way to meet this need and to take some of the guesswork out of shopping."
The last point he made on this point—and I do not think it loses any strength because he was referring particularly to detergents—was:
"Only when she knows how much she is paying per ounce can she decide whether snowiness is worth it."
I have looked very carefully at what the Government have had to say on this matter. I have the Reports of the various Committee proceedings in front of me. And, if the Minister is going to use it, I have also read what the Molony Committee said on this matter, in paragraph 307. I do not feel unduly cast down by that, because Molony stated:
"We appreciate that a true comparison of price is a particularly important element in the consumer's choice."
They go on to say:
"We recognise that even those consumers who have the mathematical skill to work out the respective prices of goods sold in differing, odd, and fractional quantities will hardly be able to do so at a busy shop-counter."

119
They then say—and this is what I would particularly point out to the Minister:
"However, it might not be possible for the seller to express his selling price as a price per unit quantity without recourse to several places of decimals. The only method of dealing with this problem, as far as we can see, is by requiring goods to be sold only in specified quantities…"
I think it is essential that when people go to shop they should be in a position to compare the price they are paying for a specified amount with other prices for the same specified amount. It seemed to me, looking at the reply made by the Parliamentary Secretary to this particular point, that he rode it off by saying that this was a wide Amendment dealing with everything. But that is not the case here. We are not saying, as my noble friend Lord Stonham was careful to point out, that the price per unit must be specified in every case: we are asking only that it should be specified where it is practicable and where it meets particular necessities. I do not know if I am right still to be optimistic in so far as the Minister of State is concerned, but this afternoon, when he was replying to Amendment No. 6, I look down his words. He said, with reference to that Amendment:
"Where it is practicable, we will do it."
If the noble Lord would only give us that reply this afternoon on this Amendment I certainly (I would not pretend to speak for my noble friend Lord Stonham) should feel considerably heartened.
4.43 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: I was naturally proposing to quote to the noble Baroness paragraph 307 of the Molony Committee, who reported against this step; and it was not recommended, either, by the Hodgson Committee. This matter has been fully argued in the other place. I think my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary fully understood what he was saying, but I shall re-argue it in case there is any doubt on the matter. This Amendment would empower the Board of Trade, by order, to require the price per unit quantity of goods to be made known to the buyer in such manner and at such time as might be specified in the order. That is the effect of the Amendment. The Government take the view, for
120
reasons which I hope to explain, that requirements of this kind would not only place unwarranted restrictions on traders, but, far more important, perhaps, in this particular circumstance, could also be positively disadvantageous to the consumer.
Take the case of goods sold loose. There may be many commodities sold in this way, such as lamb chops or poultry, fillets or cutlets of fish and so on, which the seller is perfectly prepared to weigh before sale to the housewife, but where he wishes to sell at a fixed unit price for the article. He would weigh it if asked, but he wishes to sell at so much a unit. In such cases an obligation to quote the price per lb. would prevent, by making it impossibly complicated, a common and popular method of sale of certain articles.
The primary object of the Amendment is clearly to enable housewives to check the relative values of packs containing different quantities of the same article—for instance, one marked as containing 7¾ oz. of a particular commodity and another marked as containing 6 oz. of the same commodity. The mathematical difficulties of this are quite high. Suppose the first sells at 11d. and the second at 9d. The price per lb. of the first is 22⅔ 2/1d., and that of the second 24d. We must all agree that it is not an easy matter to calculate these sums, and marking of the price per lb. would, I agree, appear to be of advantage to the consumer. But suppose costs fall—and there have been many price reductions in various commodities in recent years. The 6 oz. packet for 9d. may be increased in size to 6¼ oz. by the packer who wishes to squeeze competitive advantage while continuing to see his goods sell at a round figure. That is the case where he keeps the price the same, but increases the amount. No doubt he would, at the same time, tell the public that the quantity in the pack had been increased; but his price per lb. would now be 23 1/25d. so that his containers marked with the previous price per lb. would have to be scrapped or altered. It may be said that he should not have increased the amount in the packet but should have decreased the price from the round figure of 9d. But the next lower figure would be 8½d., which would be less than the price corresponding to an increase in weight of ¼ oz. and

121
would, in fact, be equivalent to a price per lb. of 22⅓d.
We are getting into most involved mathematics. It may be said that all this is rather fine arithmetic, but it is a fact that competition and precise costing is of vital importance in British industry and is to be encouraged. Certainly a packer ought not to be encouraged to sit back and say that it is too difficult or expensive to pass on the effect of economies to the consumer. Yet that will be the tendency. Moreover, traders who commonly sell packaged goods at less than the normal price—for example, 3d. off a tin of peaches—would be required by this Amendment either to re-mark all the tins for sale with a new price per lb. or give up this beneficial practice. In spite, therefore, of the apparent value to the consumer of a provision of this kind, I believe that on balance, it would be to the positive disadvantage of the consumer; and, accordingly, I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: On the last Amendment I congratulated the noble Lord on having made good use of a speech written some time ago which could not then be used. Now I am afraid I have to take back all I said and commiserate with him on having to redeliver a speech made on a previous occasion in another place and which I find just as unconvincing as I did when I first read it. The noble Lord said that in many cases the seller wants to sell at a fixed unit price—for example, chops or fish—and this Amendment would prevent that. For the life of me, I cannot see why. If the seller is going to sell chops at a fixed price, then it is a reasonable assumption that they are all approximately the same size. Otherwise he could not afford to sell them at the same price, because obviously the housewives would pick out the large ones and leave him with the smaller ones. What is more, he would have to weigh them, or the majority of them, before he could determine what his fixed price was going to be. Then the noble Lord said it would create great difficulties when the price fell. A butcher has his chops out on a counter in a tray, at a fixed price. He will have sold them before the price falls, assuming he has them marked at the right price. That is an argument which does not even start.
122
Then the noble Lord said, "Supposing we are encouraging the shopkeeper who sells a packet or a tin at 3d. 'under the odds'. He would have to re-mark the price." There again, I do not see that there is any disability. In most cases the goods would be ½-lb., ¼-lb. or 1-lb. tins. In fact, when this Bill becomes law, most of those things will be in fixed weights. He will be able to sell them only in the weight specified in this Bill. If he is selling a ½-lb. the official price of which is 2s., and he is going to sell it for 1s. 9d., he has only to alter the price in exactly the same way as he will in order to attract the customer in any event. He is going to say, "I am selling a 2s. tin for 1s. 9d." Of course, he is going to mark the tin in some way or another. The reply of the noble Lord savours absolutely of civil servants getting down to discover some fantastic reasons why they should not accept an Amendment which is obviously good. I could play that game—anybody can "cook up" reasons which do not have any sense in them at all as to why a particular Amendment should not be accepted.
My noble friends are treating this Committee stage, and all the stages of this Bill, seriously, and it is very discouraging to find, when we put forward Amendments and back them with reasonable arguments, that we receive this sort of answer. The noble Lord said that if this Amendment were carried out, in some cases we should get into the most involved mathematics. The object of this Amendment and, I would have hoped, one of the objects of this Bill, is to ensure that the housewife can find out what she is getting and what she has to pay, without going into involved mathematics. I, personally, do not object very strenuously if the shopkeeper has to take a little more trouble to make it plain to the buyer how much he is selling, how much per lb. or oz. it is, and what the total price is. I think buyers are entitled to that information, and are entitled to get it without a great deal of research. They ought to be able to see this easily, and this Amendment is designed precisely to ensure this.
On this occasion the noble Lord did not say—unless I did not hear it—that we had all the powers we need to do what is asked for in the Amendment. Therefore, it puts this Amendment in a

123
different category, and I shall have to ask for the support of my noble friends on this Amendment unless we can get something better from the noble Lord, or some hope that at a later stage in the Bill this point can be considered.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: The noble Lord tried to be very practical about the tin of peaches. He ought to know that a retailer who undersells—and I am not commending the practice—is successful in a measure because he sells a 2s. tin of peaches at 1s. 9d. But directly he has marked it "1s. 9d." it is no longer a 2s. tin of peaches.
LORD DERWENT: The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has tried to throw a complete smokescreen across the arguments I used. May I revert to the chops? He is going to make these chops approximately the same size, and is going to sell them at the same price. Supposing the chops vary in size, as they Well might, from 3·8 oz. to 4·3 oz.—not a very great difference—and they are offered at 9d. By this Amendment he has then to calculate the price per lb. of each chop. Can you
see a small family butcher doing this? The same applies to a tin of peaches. One has to show, by this Amendment, the price per lb. of the contents. One drops the price of the tin by 3d., and without this Amendment it is perfectly easy to alter the price tag. With this Amendment you have then to re-calculate the price per lb., and it is not so easy.
To say that this is some Civil Service objection to this Amendment is absurd. We say that it is far too complicated to work, and will do two things. It will do away with selling things, as they are now very often sold, by the piece because the housewife and the buyer like it; and it will be too complicated, particularly for the small trader, to make these calculations. In many cases, we believe, it will also prevent people from reducing their prices. If the noble Lord wishes to divide, lot him do so, but he has entirely misled the Committee as to my argument.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 63.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kennet, L.

Shackleton, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Latham, L.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Attlee, E.

Lawson, L.

Silkin, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Lindgren, L.

Stonham, L.

Champion, L.

Longford, E.

Summerskill, B.

Crook, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Walston, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Milverton, L.

Williams, L.

Faringdon, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williamson, L.

Henderson, L.

Peddie, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Hughes, L.

Sainsbury, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Eccles, L.

Margesson, V.

Allerton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Atholl, D.

Ferrers, E.

Molson, L.

Auckland, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mowbray of Stourton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Newall, L.

Boston, L.

Fraser of Norh Cape, L.

Newton, L.

Brecon, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Palmer, L.

Chesham, L.

Grenfell, L.

Perth, E.

Cholmondeley, M.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Raglan, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rathcavan, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hawke, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Colyton, L.

Hereford, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Conesford, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Salter, L.

Craigton, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sinha, L.

Crathorne, L.

Howe, E.

Somers, L.

Davidson, V.

Iddesleigh, E.

Soulbury, V.

Denham, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Derwent, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Swinton, E.

Devonshire, D.

Lothian, M.

Tenby, V.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Twining, L.

Dundonald, E.

Mancroft, L.

Waleran, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.7 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (4), to add to paragraph (a):
"and in particular as to the size of the marking relative to the size of the container".
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to ensure that when the Board of Trade frame their regulations for marking containers they will relate the size of the mark to the size of the container, so that, first, the mark will be clearly apparent to the buyer, and, second, it will not convey a misleading impression. In this way, descriptions such as "Extra Large" or "Super Size" could be prohibited unless they were, in fact true and justified.
In our view subsection (4)(a) without the addition of this Amendment is not enough to stop this form of abuse. It would be possible to comply with the requirement to mark the net weight on the package in such a way that, by smothering it with decoration, it would not be clearly apparent. In any case, the consumer would already have bought the article on the size of the container. One self-service store recently carried out an experiment which proved this particular point. They offered fruit drinks both in cans and in bottles in which the contents of both types of container were precisely the same—indeed, they were so marked—but four buyers out of five chose the bottle because it looked bigger and more for the money. In fact, subsection (4)(a) as in now stands would give a deceptive packager legal protection. He would be able to say in his defence, "By putting the net weight on the package I have complied with the law and have committed no offence." And he would be quite right.
I am not arguing in this Amendment against the attractive packaging of goods. Indeed, there is no conflict between such packaging and clearly marking the package so that the housewife knows precisely what she is buying. I have no doubt the noble Lord will argue that the power to do what I am asking for already resides in subsection (4)(a), but I would ask him to note the words in this Amendment "in particular", by which we want to spell out, as it were, the significance underlying the size of the mark in relation to the size of the packet. I have not read anywhere any Government
126
assurance that the Board of Trade intend to use subsection (4)(a) in the manner asked for in the Amendment. Unless we positively know and the noble Lord is in a position to give a positive assurance that they will do so, then the power residing in subsection (4)(a) to make regulations is of no value and the deceptive practices could continue. I would emphasise that because the weight has to be marked on the container in any case, any attempt to make it less readily apparent would be an intentional deception. We should certainly guard against this, and for this reason I think we should remove any reasonable shadow of doubt. I hope the House will support me in this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 25, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD DERWENT: I am sympathetic to the object of this Amendment, but in fact it is not necessary. It adds nothing at all to subsection (4)(a). This subsection empowers the Board of Trade to make regulations as to the manner in which containers are to be marked with information about the quantity of goods in them. The Board may use these powers, among other things, to prescribe minimum sizes for the figures and letters of such marking, and such minimum sizes could be related to the dimensions of the package. I cannot at this stage say what the regulations would be, because they are not drafted; but when they are drafted the House will have an opportunity of looking at them. This Amendment does not help at all. We already have the powers.
LORD PEDDIE: The noble Lord used the term "could be related to the size of the containers". Could be or would be?
LORD DERWENT: Could be, if the Board so wished it. They have the powers and there is not the slightest doubt about the meaning of this subsection.
LORD STONHAM: There may not be the slightest doubt, but there is not the slightest indication in subsection (4)(a) that they intend to relate the size of the marking to the size of the package: the subsection says that the Board may make regulations:
"as to the manner in which any container required by any of the provisions of any of the Schedules aforesaid…to be marked with

127
information as to the quantity of the goods made up therein is to be so marked…"
There is no indication that the mark will be related to the size of the package. The noble Lord may say that the Board of Trade would do this in any case. That is the whole purpose of bringing forward Amendments: to get an assurance or to get the Bill altered to do what we want to do. That is the point on which the noble Lord has not replied. If he can show me anywhere in the Bill where this point is covered or, alternatively, refer me to any positive assurance that this will be done, or give that assurance himself, I shall be perfectly satisfied. For the noble Lord to say, "I have not the slightest doubt that the Board of Trade will do this" is, with all respect, of no value at all.
LORD DERWENT: I did not say that I have not the slightest doubt. I said that the regulations were not yet made. If the noble Lord will look again at paragraph (a) he will see that it deals with the manner in which the marking can be authorised. I am advised that there is not the slightest doubt that the wording means the Board of Trade can make regulations about the size of the lettering.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.15 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY moved to add to the clause:
"(6) There shall be constituted a committee to be called the Standing Weights and Measures Committee, to advise the Board as to the sale of goods in terms of quantity including all such matters as may be prescribed in orders or regulations made by the Board under this part of this Act—

(a) the members of the said Committee shall consist of the following appointed by the President of the Board of Trade—

(i) three persons appearing to the President to be qualified to be representative of persons carrying on any of the classes of trade or business affected by the operation of this Act;

(ii) three persons appearing to the President to be qualified to represent the interests of the public generally in relation to the matters aforesaid;

(iii) three persons appearing to the President to have expert knowledge appropriate to the problems involved in the exercise of the powers conferred upon him under this part of this Act; and

(iv) a Chairman;

128

(b) no officer of the Board of Trade shall be a member of the Committee, the secretariat of which shall be appointed from the Board's officers and two assessors without voting powers may be added to the Committee at the President's discretion;

(c) the Committee shall have full powers to form sub-committees, to take evidence from persons who may assist them in their inquiries and may co-opt additional members to their sub-committees as may be necessary to their effective working;

(d) the Board may refer to the Committee for consideration or advice such questions as they think fit relative to the exercise of its powers under this part of this Act;

(e) the Board upon receipt of a report from the Committee in respect of any matters referred to it shall cause any such report to be printed and published;

(f) the Board may out of moneys provided by Parliament pay to the Chairman and other members of the Committee and to persons attending meetings at the request of the Committee such fees and allowances as they may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine in respect of travelling and subsistence expenses and in respect of any other expenses necessarily incurred by them for the purpose of enabling them to discharge their functions as members of the Committee."

The noble Baroness said: We hope we shall get a little further with this particular Amendment than we have with the others, because it is the feeling on this side of the House that it is necessary that a committee such as the one outlined here should be set up. We have called it the Standing Weights and Measures Committee. We think that the size of the problem makes this necessary. Your Lordships have been dealing with this particular Bill in one form or another for some considerable time now, but when we weigh up that amount of time we should think of the number of trading transactions in so far as the average shopper is concerned that the Bill will cover over the course of a year: it will probably run into millions. I am sure my noble colleagues who have a particular practical interest in this, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, would agree with me that we are, in this Bill, laying down rules for weights and measures for millions of transactions over a trading year. Separately from that, and apart from the ordinary shopper, we are dealing with hundreds of thousands of shopkeepers, and I should have thought that the best and only way to attempt to cover this vast field was to set up by this Bill an advisory council which would deal

129
with the problems of weights and measures alone.
I referred to this matter on Second Reading. It was not necessarily or solely my brain-child. The consumers' organisations over the past two years have been very worried about this particular matter, and they are still worried about it in so far as this Bill is concerned. They feel—and I do not know whether the Minister of State will be able to correct me on this—that there is an 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. As he will know, and as the House will know, in the debates on the original No. 1 Bill suggestions were put forward for an advisory council, and this point was returned to when the Bill was in another place. At that time many of my friends were doubtful about pressing this suggestion too hard, because we thought that the delay in setting up the Consumer Council might be further accentuated if it was suggested that another council should be set up. But when the Government dealt with this idea on Second Reading on November 12 last, the President of the Board of Trade, referring to the Consumer Council, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 667, col. 34]:
"The Council will no doubt take a close interest in weights and measures problems, along with other questions affecting the welfare of the consumer. The present Bill gives the Government the powers they are likely to need to give effect to any recommendation on weights and measures that they may receive from this source."
I really do not think that is enough. We do not know what is in store for us with regard to the personnel of the Consumer Council. It may well be that when we get the names we shall have ten experts on weights and measures sitting on that Council who would be well equipped to advise the President on these matters. But I am going to make the assumption—I hope not an unfair one—that we are not likely to find on that Consumer Council ten people skilled at weights and measures, competent to give this advice. I would suggest to the Committee and to the Government in any case that the Consumer Council, quite apart from whether or not it is competent to give this advice, will be much too busy to devote itself to weights and measures matters. I
130
do not intend to go over the ground here, but I should have thought that for the first twelve months the Consumer Council would have far too much to deal with to pay any attention to this subject at all. I think we are not going to get anywhere in practical terms with this weights and measures legislation unless the President of the Board of Trade receives this particular type of advice.
I imagine that we are open to suggestion, but in this Amendment we have tried to suggest what type of person should form this committee; and it seems to us that we have covered the necessary categories. The first sub-paragraph, as the Committee will see, suggests that there should be three people who are
"qualified to be representative of persons carrying on any of the classes of trade or business affected by the operation of this Act."
The second one suggests that we should have three people
"appearing to the President to be qualified to represent the interests of the public generally in relation to the matters aforesaid."
I should hope here that we might make some progress in solving what I believe is a most difficult problem—namely, the problem of appointing lay members to committees. This is always most difficult. I have seen in consumer organisations time and time again that when you get the ordinary lay member making a practical and a good point so far as certain goods are concerned, you then find that member completely crushed by the technical or the manufacturing side, who blithely say, "This just is not possible"; whereas if the lay person had just a little more knowledge he would be able to stand up to the manufacturing element and say, "Oh, yes it is, if you are prepared to look at it." I should hope on this particular point that the Minister would feel able to look for that paragon, representing the public generally, who is a layman but who has some real background knowledge of these particular matters.
The last three that we suggest, apart from the chairman, are people who should
"have expert knowledge appropriate to the problems"
and, particularly, who would be expert
"in the exercise of the powers conferred upon him (the President) under this part of this Act."
We have put forward this Amendment in the hope that the Minister will realise

131
that the strength of consumer opinion, quite apart from the Opposition in this House, feels that this type of advice is not going to be available to the President. While I hope that he will look sympathetically upon what is put forward, if he is not able to accept it I hope that in his reply he will tell us from where he feels that this type of advice to the President will come, under the powers of this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 36, at end insert the said subsection.—(Baroness Burton of Coventry.)
5.25 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: May I tell the noble Baroness at once that I am going to resist this Amendment on the ground, as I hope to show, that it is inadvisable. The problem is, of course, to get the right advice to the President. There I agree entirely with the noble Baroness. I need hardly say that I suppose she would be as appalled as I if there were to be ten weights and measures experts on the Consumer Council, because the rest of consumer protection would probably go by the board. The object of this Amendment is to set up a permanent Weights and Measures Committee to give advice to the Board of Trade. Your Lordships will be aware that the Government have already announced their acceptance of the Molony Committee's main recommendation—namely, that a Consumer Council should be set up to represent and protect the general interests of the consumer; though in so doing, of course, there will be many occasions when they will protect the particular interests of the consumer. They have announced that my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood has been appointed Chairman of the Council, and the terms of reference have also now been announced.
The Government feel that it is better that consumer interests as a whole, and particularly in the realm of weights and measures, should be looked after by the Consumer Council, because weights and measures are matters in the general consumer protection range, and we think that a Council which would have to marry these various aspects of consumer protection should be the one to give them general supervision. We visualise, at any rate in the realm of weights and measures,
132
that in many cases they will bring the problems—I do not say the solutions—to the President of the Board of Trade.
I know that this particular part of the Council's duties will be complex and technical, and I think there is not the slightest doubt that both the Council and the President will, from time to time, need careful guidance from industry and others in this matter. But we believe that it will be clearly better that both the Council and the President—but in particular, perhaps, the President—can get such advice ad hoc from whoever seems best qualified to him to give it, rather than from any standing Committee; because it is possible that a Standing Committee might have nobody on it who, on any particular question, was actually qualified to give a decision or even to advise.
The sort of thing that might come up, for instance, is the rate of evaporation of a particular commodity under various conditions. The way we rather visualise this is that the Council will say, "We think in regard to this commodity that there is a bit of funny stuff going on, and it is all put down to evaporation. We have not got the technical experts to tell us how this works." If they say that to the President of the Board of Trade he may tell them: "Well, you employ an expert." Or he may say: "Do you want us to get on with it?" But it may not be from a member of this Committee that this advice will come. The advice on these rather complicated questions must be ad hoc advice from whoever is the most qualified to give it; and that will not necessarily be somebody on the Committee. I am afraid that the Government see no point in setting up yet another Committee, because we believe that this is the job of the Consumer Council. Undoubtedly, they will point things out to the President. But where he gets his advice from will depend on the problem. I think that that is probably, in practice, the better way of dealing with the matter.
LORD LATHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, commenced his answer to submissions by my noble friend by saying that this proposal was inadvisable, without, I think, in any way making a convincing case as to why it is inadvisable. It is not that we wish

133
to set up a new committee just for the fun of so doing. Of course we admit, as indeed any sensible person must, that weights and measures is an important part of consumer protection. In our view, it is so large and important a part that it is entitled to have a special committee to keep under review, continuously and permanently, the circumstances relating to distribution and marketing which, of course, are not static but changing every day. New methods of selling, distribution, storage and marketing are the order of the day. Supermarkets abound, and we are told that they are likely to double in number within the next two or three years; and changes in packaging are taking place. All of these are matters related to, and part of, weights and measures. We take the view that the problem is sufficiently large to warrant having a permanent committee charged with keeping under continuous review, and also under continuous report to the President of the Board of Trade, the matters concerning weights and measures in a broad comprehensive sense.
We have made suggestions as to the constitution of that body, suggestions to which we are not necessarily bound. The constitution of the committee and the indications given in the Amendment as to its work are such that I had hoped the noble Lord would have found himself able to be more sympathetic to this proposal than he has been. I therefore hope that on reflection he will be able to say that he will not dismiss the proposal out of hand in a cavalier fashion, but will give the matter further consideration so that we may have it before us again at a later stage of the Bill.
LORD DERWENT: May I add one word? The noble Lord, Lord Latham, talked as though weights and measures were not under continuous review. Of course this subject is under continuous review inside the Board of Trade. The process never stops.
LORD LATHAM: One is entitled, of course, to have that indication.
LORD DERWENT: If the noble Lord came to work at the Board of Trade he would see it happening. We feel that the committee now proposed would not be as effective—and this is the real answer—as perhaps the noble Baroness and the noble Lord imagine. We believe
134
that the Consumer Council is the proper body to bring points, whether on weights or measures or anything else, to the attention of the President of the Board of Trade, and we think that he should get his advice where he thinks he ought to get it. We believe that both the Consumer Council and, perhaps, to a lesser extent, the President of the Board of Trade might in some way be slightly handicapped in their work by having another committee. I will look again at what the noble Baroness has said, but I do not think we are likely to alter our minds because we do not think this Amendment is necessary and are not sure that it would be the efficient way of doing it.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: The noble Lord said that the Board of Trade would prefer to get their advice on an ad hoc basis, rather than from such a committee as is suggested, because on such a committee, he said, there might not be the people adequate to answer. I am quite convinced that if you get first-class people in this weights and measures field they would be competent to answer; and if there were any particular points arising which they could not answer it would still then be possible to seek an ad hoc opinion. I am glad that the Minister has said that he will look at this point again. I am not very optimistic, and I know that he does not intend me to be. I do not see that the Consumer Council will be competent to deal with this aspect. The matters arising under weights and measures are complicated, and the members of the Weights and Measures Inspectorate are the people who know about them. While appreciating that the Minister of State obviously is not able to give way on this, I do not think that the two reasons he has advanced—namely, that the Consumer Council is the one to do the job, and that a committee such as is proposed would not be able to provide the answers—are the last word on this. Therefore, I very much hope he will feel able to come back to this in the next stage of the proceedings.
LORD DERWENT: I would remind the noble Baroness that the Inspectorate are not entirely divorced from connection with the Board of Trade. We get their objections directly.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
On Question, Whether Clause 21 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD AIREDALE: I should like to say a word or two on subsection (2)(e), which deals with sales from vending machines and which requires certain information about the quantity of the goods and the name and address of the seller to be displayed, as it says, "…on or in the machine". The information displayed on the machine is undoubtedly available for members of the public to read, which is what is intended; but does it follow that if the information is displayed "in the machine"—in other words inside the machine—members of the public will be able to read it without waiting for the man to come along and open the machine to enable them to read the information displayed inside it? I should have thought that it was worth considering either leaving out the words "or in", or else providing that, if the information is contained inside the machine, it must be in such a position that members of the public can see into the machine so as to read the information.
LORD DERWENT: Could the noble Lord give me his original reference?
LORD AIREDALE: Subsection (2)(e). I do not ask the noble Lord to answer this now.
LORD DERWENT: I can give him an answer now. The Board will control what happens with vending machines under Clause 21(4)(b). Does that answer the noble Lord's question?
LORD AIREDALE: No, it does not in the least, but I think that when the noble Lord reads in Hansard what I have said he will appreciate the point. I appreciate that he cannot give an answer on the spot. I am sorry I was not able to give him prior notice of the point because it occurred to me only just now.
LORD DERWENT: I will look at it. I have not quite got the point, so I certainly cannot give the answer.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23:
Quantity to be stated in writing in certain cases
23.—
(4) The Board may by order grant and from time to time vary or revoke, with respect to goods or sales of such descriptions as may be specified in the order, exemption, either generally or in such circumstances as may be so specified from all or any of the requirements of this section; and, until otherwise provided by such an order, nothing in subsections (1) to (3) of this section shall apply to—
(a) a sale by retail from a vehicle of—

(i) any of the following in a quantity not exceeding two hundredweight, that is to say, any solid fuel within the meaning of Schedule 6 to this Act, and wood fuel;

(ii) any of the following in a quantity not exceeding five gallons, that is to say, liquid fuel lubricating oil, and any mixture of such fuel and oil;

5.39 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (4), to leave out paragraph (a). The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has had to leave for a public engagement and I hope I may be permitted to move the Amendment standing in his name. The purpose of the Amendment is to remove the exemption from the need to give written quantity statements in retail sales from a road vehicle of solid fuel and wood fuel in quantities of less than 2 cwt., and of liquid fuel and lubricating oil in quantities not exceeding 5 gallons. It is indeed astonishing that in a clause designed generally to protect the consumer by requiring written statements of quantity this protection should be withdrawn from people who in the vast majority of cases need it most—namely, the poorer people who buy fuel in small quantities. Moreover, the Bill as it now stands withdraws the protection which in many cases these people now enjoy, because it is the Government's intention to take from local authorities their by-law-making powers in relation to the sale of coal in quantities not exceeding 2 cwt. Local authorities in all parts of the country are most concerned about this, because frauds by delivery men are prevalent, and many deliveries are made to houses and flats where there is no one at home to receive them.
There is absolutely no foundation in equity for saying that the customer receiving 230 lb. of coal must have a written statement of quantity, and the

137
customer having 220 lb. must not. It dates from the days nearly a hundred years ago when many delivery men were illiterate, and fuel was as little as 3d. or 6d. a bag. There was justification then for a weight ticket exemption on small, casual sales; but not to-day, when some fuels are as much as 20s. cwt. and when all delivery men can write. Some of them can, and do, "fiddle"; it may be only a minority, but it is still a widespread practice.
Birmingham, for example, reports 320 cases of proved weight deficiencies; one, where out of 8 bags delivered 5 were short weight. This was discovered only because the coalman had abstracted lumps from the bags and had 2 cwt. of loose coal left in the van. Sales of wood fuel are increasing, and on the Amendment to the appropriate Schedule we shall give details of the widespread frauds in short weight deliveries. The same applies to liquid fuel. A Stoke-on-Trent weights and measures inspector found that, out of 23 tested deliveries, 11 were deficient in varying degree.
In some areas 70 per cent. or even 90 per cent. of people lake their fuel in quantities of 2 cwt. or less at a time. They just have not the room, even if they had the money, to buy larger quantities. Millions now live in block of flats. If the coalman delivers a hundredweight he takes the sack away. If the housewife, absent at the time, suspects short weight she cannot without a weight ticket even prove which particular coalman delivered it, and without the sack she cannot prove the quantity that was supposed to be delivered. That, I submit, disposes of the argument that because the sack must bear a mark showing the quantity there is no need for a weight ticket in addition. In nine cases out of ten the sack will not be there.
Nor can I accept the possible excuse that this is only a provisional exemption and that the Board of Trade can always make another order if things go wrong. The local authorities and the weights and measures inspectors know that things are going wrong now, even with the power to prosecute under local by-laws. The great difference is that the powers they possess to keep the frauds in check will be taken away, and there will be no protection left for most of the buyers of fuel in the country. Consider the case of a housewife living on the sixth floor of a block of
138
flats. She has trouble enough, as it is, getting a man to deliver the coal. She may suspect that her deliveries are grossly under weight, but if she complains she may find herself without coal altogether. With a weight ticket she will have some proof, some protection; without it she has none at all. The Government will be positively inviting a racket directed mainly at poor people. I assure the Minister that local authorities regard this matter with the greatest concern. I strongly urge, therefore, that this Amendment be accepted, and that the great majority of those who buy their fuel in small quantities shall be given exactly the same protection as those who buy it in large quantities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 43, leave out paragraph (a).—(Lord Latham.)
LORD HAWKE: I think that there is a lot in this business of the person who buys coal in 1 cwt. and 2 cwt. quantities at a time being given a ticket, because, as the noble Lord opposite said, very often they are out and the coal is dumped into their cellar. It is a satisfaction to them to know that they have a ticket to show that they have bought a hundredweight, although I would say that in 99 cases out of 100 it would be quite impossible for them to prove that they were short, even if they were short. Nevertheless there is some sort of comfort in getting this hundredweight ticket. But, of course, the ultimate protection for the small consumer in that way is the manner in which the largest stores people are beginning to pre-pack coal in 28 lb. and the like for the sixth-floor flat dwellers, because then these people know that they get full weight, though they have to "tote" it up themselves. They pay a great deal extra for the packing, but the lower cost of delivery will be taken into account in the price.
LORD PEDDIE: I hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment, because it is one which is completely in accord with the spirit of consumer protection. I have been trying to turn over in my mind any possible arguments that could be advanced against the Amendment; and, indeed, I have been intrigued so far by many of the extremely competent arguments that have been advanced against Amendments that have been

139
moved. In this case, however, it is impossible to imagine any objection to a method which would compel the deliverer to indicate the precise quantity that was being delivered.
As my noble friend indicated in a very powerful argument, acceptance of this Amendment would give protection where it is most needed. The present method is completely illogical. It dates from a time, way back in 1899, I think it was, when, as my noble friend indicated, the deliverer might be illiterate, and the price of the coal was very low. But to-day's circumstances have changed; and in putting forward this Amendment we believe that it indicates a method which would impose no disabilities at all on the deliverer. Indeed, I rather think it would be welcomed by the proprietor of the coal business, because he himself would have a measure of protection which he has not got when the quantities are less than 2 cwt. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment will be accepted.
LORD DERWENT: I quite understand the concern which has been expressed on this particular matter. I hope to show that in fact the matter is not quite so serious as one might think. I am not pretending that, however we draft this Bill, there will be no one swindling on coal deliveries—because there will be. Of that there is not the slightest doubt. I once listened to a lecture by an inspector who specialised in coal deliveries, and I gathered that there are about 50 different ways in which it is possible to swindle. May I take some little time about this, because I want to show why I think such protection as we can give is there?
The object of the clause—not the Amendment—is broadly to ensure that, where goods are sold in terms of weight, measure or number, and they are delivered to a buyer on his own premises, he will receive a statement in writing as to their quantity. That is the main part of the clause. This will give him an opportunity of checking whether he has been given the correct quantity, and the statement will furnish useful evidence to an inspector investigating an allegation that the goods were being delivered short-weight. In other words, it gives the buyer of goods delivered loose the type of protection he enjoys when
140
pre-packed goods, which have to be marked with their weight or measure, are delivered to him. That is the main point of the clause.
To take some examples of how the present clause will operate, obviously a delivery note is not required when the goods may legally be sold without any mention of the quantity involved (that does happen) and the goods are, in fact, sold in this way. It is not required if the shopkeeper weighs the goods in front of the customer and then hands them over. It is not required, in the case of some goods, if the customer helps himself in a self-service store from a bin which has a notice stating the quantity of each article in the bin; and it is not required if the goods are pre-packed and the container is marked with the quantity. But a delivery note is necessary where the shopkeeper delivers goods sold in terms of weight or measure to the house of the buyer in response, for example, to a telephone call.
The effect of subsection (4)(a) is to exempt retail sales of coal and paraffin made by hawkers unless the Board of Trade otherwise order. The reason for this provisional exemption is that these sales are virtually in the same category as those exempted by the earlier subsections, by the ones I have already mentioned. If coal is delivered in sacks, it must be in specified quantities marked on the sacks—that is set out in paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 6. So that you have got your container, which is a sack, marked with the contents.
LORD HAWKE: May I ask my noble friend a question here? Is this something new? Because the ordinary coal sack does not lend itself to any marking.
LORD DERWENT: This is in the Bill. If the coal is loose, it must be weighed at the time of sale.
LORD PEDDIE: But on the point of marking the sack, what advantage is the marked sack to the occupier of a house who is not present when the delivery is made?
LORD DERWENT: I shall come to that in a minute. If it is loose, it must be weighed at the time of sale. Similarly, a hawker (we are dealing here with small quantities) must use stamped measuring equipment to measure out the quantity of paraffin sold—that is provided for

141
in paragraph 2(a) of Part I of Schedule 7—and the customer will be able to see the measuring. If the occupant of the house is out, then Clause 23(4)(a), about which we are talking, does not apply anyway: the transaction is then not a sale from a vehicle bur a delivery. I hope that that is clear to my noble friend. If the occupier of the house is out, it is a delivery and not a sale from a vehicle. So that what we are doing here is virtually to put small quantities of paraffin and solid fuel on the same basis as if they were bought in a shop, using roughly the same regulations.
We believe that to require a written statement as to quantity would be an unduly onerous requirement comparing one trader with another, particularly with this door-to-door trade, where sales are in small quantities. Whether in fact a delivery note is any more protection in these particular circumstances than the rules we have got for them—the weighing of loose stuff, and the rest in a marked bag—is very much open to question I think. If, in practice, contrary to our expectations, in spite of what noble Lords have said, this leads to abuses which could be remedied by the issue of written delivery notes, the Board have power to act accordingly. But we do not think that this will help very much. We think that it is differentiating as between one trader and another; and we think that these new regulations will in most circumstances meet the case. I again repeat: we know that in this particular trade, as in probably all trades, there are those who try to cheat, and there are those who will succeed in cheating; but we believe that these regulations will enable inspectors to catch them.
LORD PEDDIE: Is the Minister stating that at the present moment there is adequate protection for the householder?
LORD DERWENT: At present?
LORD PEDDIE: Yes.
LORD DERWENT: No. These laws are, in fact, a tightening up. I quite agree that the present laws are not sufficient.
LORD LATHAM: Will the noble Lord tell us why the Government propose to remove from local authorities the power to make by-laws in this behalf?
LORD DERWENT: That is not really a question arising on this Amendment.
LORD AIREDALE: Does it follow from the reply which the Minister has just given that, in the case where the buyer is out, which is the case about which many noble Lords are concerned, in that event the seller will have to leave a delivery note at the place where the goods are delivered?
LORD DERWENT: Over a certain amount, but not with these small sales if the people are at the house when the delivery takes place. But if they are out, a delivery note will be required.
LORD LATHAM: Will the noble Lord indicate why he takes the view that the removal of this power from local authorities does not relate to this particular Amendment?
LORD DERWENT: Perhaps the noble Lord would like to explain why it does.
LORD LATHAM: Because the local authorities will be bereft of a power which they presently have.
LORD DERWENT: On these small deliveries only?
LORD LATHAM: Yes; and it is very important.
LORD DERWENT: I apologise to the noble Lord; I had not realised what he was driving at. He is perfectly right: they do have that power.
LORD PEDDIE: Am I right in believing that, in reply to a question, the Minister made the statement a moment ago that, where less than 2 cwt. is delivered and the occupant is out, a note has to be left?
LORD DERWENT: Because then it is not a sale from a vehicle: it is a delivery. That is the difference under the Bill.
LORD LATHAM: That is a distinction without a difference, is it?
LORD DERWENT: A very considerable difference. In one case there is a delivery note, in one case there is not. In one case the customer can check, in the other case he cannot.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Is the noble Lord able to tell us what representations have been

143
made to his Department on this particular matter with regard to, say, small bags of coal, as to how it affects them? Has he had any representations?
LORD DERWENT: There have been representations both from local authorities and from the coal trade.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Because the very fact of the talk now about a delivery note being required only when there is nobody in and the coal is left indicates that there is no guarantee, if somebody is prosecuted in a case like that, that the coal was short-weight when it was weighed in the coal yard, or even that it had lost weight in the course of delivery. Very often it means that the coal has been "pinched" while lying at the premises of the person to whom it is delivered. I think a sufficient amount of attention should be given to the position of the trader. I am quite sure that the noble Lord is not incorrect when he says that there are some people who "fiddle". I think that is quite possible. But I feel that, in making severe regulations, some attention should be paid by the Government to the actual facts of the situation.
People have been demanding deliveries of coal in smaller quantities, but at the beginning the great majority of it was delivered to customers at the shop, and they brought their small prams to wheel away the 28 lb. bags themselves, which was a great help in the difficulty of getting deliverers to work. That is the actual fact. But in this last winter, during which a number of prosecution's have taken place, the position was entirely changed. Very often, because there was such a slackness in getting coal delivered by rail and road to the coal depôts, great quantities which had been stacked in bags and weighed up properly had to be sent out at short notice to customers. There have been a great many difficulties about this. I am all in favour of getting regulations which are right, and intent upon catching the "fiddler", but I think we have also to have the kind of local inquiry and control which is possible under regulations of a local authority.
LORD DERWENT: Did the noble Earl quite understand what I said? I
144
take it that he is thinking about the small dealer and somebody who is not in his home and not able to go to the shop to collect. This person meets the man with the cart and says, "Will you deliver such-and-such at my home?" The man says "Yes." Then there must be a delivery note because the person was not in the house.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: He may have to leave the goods and the note at the back door.
LORD DERWENT: If he thinks somebody is going to complain that he is delivering short weight then he does not have to deliver.
LORD HAWKE: May I say that my noble friend's explanation has absolutely satisfied me? The position is as water-tight as this particular situation is ever likely to be.
LORD LATHAM: So likely as to be occurring all over the country. But the noble Lord has not given us an explanation why the local authorities are to be denuded of their existing powers as regards small deliveries.
LORD DERWENT: Because after due consideration with various people it was considered that this was the best way of handling the matter.
LORD LATHAM: Consideration with various people? Does that embrace the associations of local authorities? Did they assent to this?
LORD DERWENT: I do not say they assented; they were consulted, as were the coal trade.
LORD CROOK: But surely the noble Lord is aware that the County Councils' Association are still opposed?
LORD DERWENT: I said they were consulted; I did not say they agreed.
LORD LATHAM: I am sorry the Minister has been a little recalcitrant over this matter, which is really a human matter of persons, of the poor people. I was hoping he would have been more appreciative of that and more co-operative in considering the proposal we put forward, and which we have previously put forward, not only in another place

145
but also on the first consideration of this Bill in your Lordships' House. I am sorry there has been no development in the mind of the Government or of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, towards treating this matter as it is: a serious matter for the poorest of the people. In
6.10 p.m.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved, at the end of subsection (4)(f), to leave out "or". The noble Earl said: With permission, I will speak to this Amendment and the next together because the first is consequential on the second. These Amendments will make it unnecessary to supply a delivery note in the case of goods which are delivered to the buyer by means of a permanent installation between the premises of buyer and seller. It has come to our attention that Clause 23, as now drafted, will require a delivery note to be provided for sales of goods which are delivered by a permanent pipe-line installation and which are normally measured by a meter in the buyer's premises. For example, liquid gas is, I understand, in some cases piped in direct to customers' premises from the manufacturers. Other examples might be retail sales of domestic gas and water in particular areas where these sales are made by cubic feet or gallons rather than by therms or the water rate. In the future, it seems likely that deliveries
146
the circumstances, I am sorry but I must press my Amendment.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 53.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Hughes, L.

Shackleton, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Latham, L.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Listowel, E.

Silkin, L.

Chorley, L.

Longford, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Crook, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Williams, L.

Faringdon, L.

Peddie, L.

Williamson, L.

Henderson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Eccles, L.

Molson, L.

Airedale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Newall, L.

Allerton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Newton, L.

Atholl, D.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Auckland, L.

Grenfell, L.

Palmer, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Perth, E.

Boston, L.

Hanworth, V.

Raglan, L.

Brecon, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Carrington, L.

Howe, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Chesham, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Salter, L.

Conesford, L.

Ironside, L.

Sinha, L.

Craigton, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Somers, L.

Davidson, V.

Lansdowne, M.

Strang, L.

Denham, L.

Long, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Derwent, L.

Lothian, M.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Devonshire, D.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Swinton, E.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Margesson, V.

Waleran, L.

Dundonald, E.

Merrivale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

by permanent pipe-line will increase, rather than decrease, for other goods as well.
In cases of this kind, the normal delivery note provisions of Clause 23 would be altogether impracticable. The buyer will be informed of the quantity which he is buying by other means, for example, by a meter or other measuring instrument, and it would be unnecessary to require separate delivery statements, even if it were possible to supply them. Therefore, we have provided by these Amendments that sales of this kind shall be exempted from the provisions of Clause 23. I hope that the Committee will agree that this is the sensible course in present circumstances. I would only add that this exemption, like others in subsection (4) of Clause 23, may be varied or revoked by order, so that if at any future time it became appropriate to deal with these pipe-line sales in some other way, we should have power to do so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 20, leave out ("or").—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL FERRERS: I beg to move Amendment 13.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 21, at end insert ("or
(h) goods delivered at premises of the buyer by means of an installation providing a connection of a permanent nature between those premises and premises of the seller.)".—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
6.15 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, the reason why this Bill is required at this time is that the arrangements for the payment of Exchequer Equalisation Grant in Scotland expire on May 15, 1963. So, by that date, without this Bill, we have no authority to pay the grant. Clause 1, therefore, continues the present arrangements, as amended by the Bill, and continues the review every five years. It is gratifying that the method of calculation of the grant as between England and Scotland was so satisfactorily defined in the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, and it is also gratifying for Scotland to know that, as a result of revaluation in England and Wales, the total amount of grant, at least for this year, will now be in the neighbourhood of £22 million. Otherwise, it would have been about £20 million.
As is usual with Bills of this nature, opportunity has been taken to legislate on a number of matters relevant to local authority finance. Scotland to-day is a changing Scotland and it is necessary and proper that the law governing our affairs should change also. We have taken this opportunity to improve the effectiveness of the Exchequer Grant and
148
rating systems and to contribute towards the improvement of the Scottish economy. For example, in Clause 8, the weighting for general grant can now be varied by order, as is already the case in England. In this way—after discussion, of course, with the local authorities—we hope to spread the load more fairly in the changing circumstances of population.
Clause 10 is of major importance to certain sections of Scottish industry. When we came to compare re-rated Scotland with re-rated England, we found that the burden of full rates upon Scottish industry would have put Scotland proportionately at a disadvantage. Clause 10, therefore, preserves 50 per cent. de-rating for industry until 1966–67 and even then the Secretary of State has powers to do other than reinstate full re-rating.
Part II of the Bill, apart from Clause 10, deals with the mechanics of valuation. It is understandable that changes should have been found necessary in the Act of 1956, and other valuation Acts. One important provision here is in subsection (1) of Clause 15. It would be of value to put on record the circumstances behind this. In discussion with the Scottish local authorities before the 1956 Act they were offered a choice: either the Inland Revenue Valuation Office would value Scotland for them, as they do in England and Wales (and they would make no charge for it), or the Scottish local authorities could employ their own assessors at their own expense to do their valuations for them. Rather unlike the traditional picture of the Scotsman, they accepted the latter course. The danger of lack of uniformity of valuation was discussed at the time, and the risk was thought to be acceptable. In the event, certainly in the view of the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council, considerable uniformity was achieved, but after the revaluation some local authorities had doubts, and these, in the years of valuation to come, are now set at rest by this subsection, which permits comparison with other areas.
There is an improvement in Clause 14 in the definition of agricultural buildings, which do not, of course, pay rates. Under the 1956 Act, and unlike conditions in England where an agricultural building is not located on a farm, the farmer occupying it does not get relief

149
from rates. This is now put right. Secondly, there are cases where a group of farmers use for agricultural purposes a building not necessarily on any of their farms. Such use should qualify for de-rating and now qualifies in Clause 14.
Clause 2 and its connected clauses deal with the changeover for Equalisation Grant purposes from the rateable value basis to the product of a penny rate. In adopting the penny rate system we have followed England and Wales. The advantage of taking the product of a penny rate as compared with rateable value is that allowance can be made for reduced rate receipts from certain properties—primarily those that are unoccupied and those that are given either discretionary or mandatory relief from rates. A penny rate is therefore a more accurate yardstick of the wealth of a local authority. Clause 2 adopts it for Equalisation Grant purposes. Clause 7 uses it for apportionment and the calculation of requisitions, and Clause 9 attempts, for those who can understand it, to explain what it is.
I come now to the one facet in the payment of Equalisation Grant with which the Opposition in another place disagreed perhaps more unanimously than do the local authorities themselves. The Government quite understand this. Some local authorities were getting in effect a blank cheque drawn on the taxpayer to help to offset their low rents, and that system is now brought to an end. The whole principle of Exchequer Equalisation Grant is to bring the poorer local authorities up to a minimum level as though Scotland were an average part of England and Wales. The poorer authorities rightly get a higher proportion of grant than the wealthier authorities, but their poverty was sometimes the result of unreasonably low local authority rents.
The Public Accounts Committee drew our attention to this and pointed out that this added burden of poverty was recompensed by the taxpayer to a considerable extent and arose from a deliberate decision by the local authority. Under Clause 3 this state of affairs is brought to an end. For grant purposes we take gross annual value as the yardstick of fair rent that could and should be attained by the local authority. If they choose to charge rents lower than this, the difference must come from the rate-
150
payer and should not come from the taxpayer, and that difference, whatever it may be, expressed in terms of grant, is to be refunded to the Exchequer.
Of course, there are a number of saving provisions, as will be seen from the table in Clause 3. A level of rent approaching gross value might not be reached until 1965–66. Secondly, there will always be those householders who cannot afford the full standard rent. No local authority can be expected to adopt a general rent at gross value without adopting a rent rebate system. This is provided for in the table by making the ultimate standard 95 per cent. of gross annual value.
There may be cases, especially in the areas of high unemployment, where the amount of rebates is so high that it would be too difficult for the local authority to reach the 95 per cent. standard. In these cases, they can adopt the third column of the table, namely, full annual value less rebates—granted under an approved scheme—if this would in terms of grant receivable pay them better. These provisions, my Lords, really need no justification. We really must get local authority housing finance in Scotland put on the right lines. Gross annual value is an impartial measure of rental value, and there is nothing at all improper in local authorities exceeding it in the case of tenants who can afford to pay more; but the least we can expect is that they should, apart from rebates, reach gross annual value. We really should not ask the taxpayer to subsidise them when they go below a level of gross annual value less rebates.
My Lords, this then is the Bill. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that in the many ways I have described it will benefit Scotland. It was introduced at the commencement of this Session; it has taken rather a long time in another place. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the local authorities, if they are to be paid equalisation grant and keep their finance in order, must have the Bill by May 15, so I would ask the co-operation of your Lordships in giving this a speedy, if not an easy, passage. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Craigton.)
6.25 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, for

151
the explanation he has given of the Bill; and it will not surprise him if I start off by saying that I cannot give the same measure of welcome to every clause of the Bill that he himself has done. Some of the measures of the Bill are such that I can do no other than commend them, because I must accept that even the present Government do some things right sometimes. For instance, Clause 2 of the Bill, altering the formula from the rateable value and standard rateable value to the product of the penny rate and the product of the standard penny rate, is one that is, I think, generally acceptable to the local authorities, because it takes account of those elements of value which do not produce any revenue, and it became of added importance when mandatory relief to various charities was given last year. The Government are to be commended for taking the earliest opportunity of placing one local authority in a comfortable position with another, because, things being as they are, an authority like Edinburgh, for instance, found itself losing proportionately a great deal more money than other authorities, due to so many headquarters of charities being located in Edinburgh. This helps to right a comparatively small but, nevertheless, important injustice.
Clause 3 is the clause of this Bill which has perhaps received the most publicity and has been the subject of most argument. It has been borne in on me, in discussions that I have had to-day, that the official attitude to this Bill, and to Clause 3, is not that it is a proposal to increase the rents of corporation houses in Scotland, although that is the general impression that the public have taken from it, but that by imposing certain percentages of gross annual value, with a penalty attaching if they fail, the Government are using a big stick to compel local authorities to come up to a more realistic rent figure. There are many points of view about what is a realistic rent figure, but, accepting for one moment that what is proposed in the Bill is realistic and leaving aside the argument whether it is, I should like to examine the matter further.
The Minister of State used words which were not completely consistent, as I thought, with this contention that the primary purpose of Clause 3 is to diminish the demands on the Exchequer; that the taxpayer should not be expected
152
to subsidise through Exchequer Equalisation Grants unduly low rents. He was speaking a little faster than I can write, and I am afraid my shorthand is now far too rusty to use. However, he said something like this: that we must get local authority rents on a right level. That is not exactly what he said but I do not think it differs from the gist of it. If that be the case, then it is important that the timetable visualised in the clause should be adhered to.
The Secretary of State speaking in another place, made it perfectly obvious that he thought gross annual value was not a high target for local authorities to attain in their local authority rents, and one which would not be outwith the capabilities of large numbers of occupants of council houses; and that those who did find them high should receive relief through the measure of rent rebate. But, having said that, he pointed out that it was reasonable that this should be reached over a period of time. In the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee on November 27, the Secretary of State (I am quoting from column 11 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee) used these words:
"The minimum which the Bill sets for this purpose is 95 per cent. of the aggregate gross annual value of a local authority's houses. But this will not be reached till 1965–66. In the previous two years the minimum will be 85 per cent. and 90 per cent. respectively of the total gross annual values."
I do not wish to do the Secretary of State an injustice, and I think it is fair that I should emphasise the fact that he used the word "minimum", because he does not believe that 85, 90 or 95 per cent. at the end of the day is a reasonable target. But he accepted it as reasonable for these particular years, the steps to be accomplished at that time on a journey which would not necessarily end at that figure and in that year.
The same theme was followed by the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Leburn, at the second sitting of the Scottish Grand Committee, when he said [column 103]:
"If local authorities respond in the way in which we want them to respond, they will not lose anything."
That is a slightly different aspect of the matter from the one to which the Secretary of State was referring, but I propose to tie them together now. Clause 3, as originally before another place, gave three percentages, 85, 90 and 95 in the

153
respective years, 1963–64, 1964–65 and 1965–66. As a result of the discussions at the Committee stage of the Bill, the Government accepted that local authorities, particularly those with relatively high unemployment, might be faced with substantial diminutions of their rent income through the operations of a rebate system. As the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, mentioned, they were given the opportunity of choosing a second set of figures, which in each case is 5 per cent. higher. If they elect to take that as the basis for their notional rent level, then they need not worry about the extent to which rent rebate eats into the income receivable, because the rent rebate element will be ignored and, provided their gross income before rebates reaches the figure which is 5 per cent. higher, they will receive the full amount of their Exchequer Equalisation Grants.
One thing which I have found out by reference to the statements which have been issued by the Government from time to time is that at the present time the average rent in Scotland is somewhat less than 75 per cent. of the gross annual value. The actual gross annual value in Scotland of local authority houses was between £46 and £47 per house—that is an average figure taken over houses of all sizes. The actual rent charged at the last time of the ascertainment of average rents in Scotland was 12s. 3d. per week, which represents 68 per cent. of a gross annual value of £47. That percentage will now be changed upwards to some extent, because between the time of the ascertainment of that average figure of 12s. 3d. and the present date a number of local authorities, either or their own free will or by compulsion, have increased their rents. But I am quite certain that the average rent level is still below 75 per cent. of the gross annual value. If the proportion is 75 per cent. or less on May 15, we have this impossible position being imposed: that the local authority, in order to protect their Equalisation Grant, must maintain an average rent of 85 per cent. during the year 1963–64.
I would ask the noble Lord to accept that I am talking facts when I say that it would not be possible for local authorities to increase present rents before August of this year. Some houses are let on a quarterly basis, some on a monthly, and some on a weekly basis; and the necessary machinery of issuing
154
notices to quit and sending out new notices would be such that the earliest date that a new rent level could be established would be August 28, 1963. That means that a quarter of the year would have elapsed at the present rental of 75 per cent. or less. Now what does that mean? It means that a local authority which elected to take the lower scales, and which has a 75 per cent. rent at the present time, in order to accomplish an average of 85 per cent. for the whole year would have to raise their rents to 88 per cent. of the gross annual value for the remaining nine months of the year. If they wish to take the higher scale to have the benefit of the rent rebate provisions, they would have to raise their rents in August of this year to 95 per cent.
The Secretary of State for Scotland gave a firm statement that local authorities would be given up to 1965–66 to reach this higher target. But the sheer mechanics of the timing of this Bill are such that at least half the local authorities in Scotland will be forced into a position where they will have within three months to raise their rents to the sort of percentage which the Bill visualises as being attained in May, 1965.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that the Bill was introduced and published in November of last year. The local authorities have had full warning of what was likely to happen.
LORD HUGHES: I anticipated that someone would make that statement, so I am not taken by surprise and I am not without answer. If the Bill were still in the form in which it was introduced, or even when it was discussed at Second Reading, that might be a valid argument. But, in fact, the acceptance of the second scale of values would mean that many local authorities will have to double the rents they are presently charging, and that local authorities which would not previously look at rent rebate schemes are now being compelled to bring in rent rebate proposals in order to do justice to their tenants at lower income levels.
Had the local authorities proceeded to bring forward rent proposals at Second Reading stage, they would then have been faced with the prospect, if they wanted to take advantage of the more favourable

155
conditions which did not exist in the Bill until it reached Report stage in another place, of taking steps to amend the proposals which they made to take effect as from May 15. So that a local authority which proceeded on the basis that what was presented to another place on Second Reading in November or December was what was ultimately to emerge, would be looking rather foolish in having to amend its proposals almost immediately they were put into effect. It shows that it is not reasonable to assume that, no matter how well-intentioned the Government may be, Parliament will necessarily pass a measure in the form in which it was first introduced; and I think it is a dangerous principle to expect local authorities to proceed on the basis that a Bill introduced must necessarily be a measure passed. After all, we have waited a long time this afternoon to discuss this Bill, because the House was engaged in discussing a Bill which went through your Lordships' House entirely a long time ago but, notwithstanding the Government's intentions, did not succeed in becoming law; and if local authorities then had started making particular arrangements in relation to weights and measures in expecting that the Bill was to go through in 1961 they would be looking very foolish at this moment.
I would also emphasise that the Secretary of State, in relation to the local authority with which I have had some connection in the past, Dundee—which was subjected to an inquiry into its rent structure recently—has just approved a rent structure of 75 per cent. of gross annual value, to take effect from May 28, although he made it perfectly clear to them that he did not think it a fair rent. But he has nevertheless approved it and he has authorised its introduction from May 28. The result is that Dundee, if it is to protect its grant, will have to proceed in August to jump to a rent of 95 per cent. I suggest that it is quite unreasonable to put into a measure a timetable which, because the Bill has taken much longer to go through another place than the Government may have visualised, is now impossible of implementation as it is laid down; and the pledge which the Secretary of State for Scotland gave that local authorities would
156
have until 1965 to reach the figure of 95 per cent. is, by the sheer effect of time, impossible of attainment and they will be forced into this position either in August or, at the latest, in November of this year.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has expressed views on local authority rents in the past and I have not the slightest doubt that he looks on this measure, as I confess I looked on it, as one which will be a useful weapon for getting the local authorities to raise their rents, not because they want to but because they are not prepared to face up to the consequences of having their grant diminished. It was rather a shock, therefore, to find what a puny weapon this is in relation to many of the local Scottish authorities.
I have mentioned Dundee, and I will not apologise to your Lordships for quoting the figures for Dundee, because they are the ones with which I am most familiar. The average gross annual value in Dundee is some £51 per house. There are approximately 23,000 houses, which gives a total gross annual value of, say, £1,200,000 a year. The rent which I have mentioned as being authorised is 75 per cent. They must attain a rent of 85 per cent. if they are to protect their grant. The difference is 10 per cent. of £1,200,000, which is £120,000. I am quite certain that there are Members of your Lordships' House who will probably be under the same impression as I was, not having gone into the mechanism of this Exchequer Equalisation Grant formula, that a local authority falling short of its target by some £120,000 would suffer some very important deduction of grant. But what Dundee stands to lose—I must admit I am appalled to find out—is 3 per cent. of £120,000; so that the penalty which will be imposed by the Secretary of State on the Dundee Council is a loss of some £3,600 in this present year, and £7,200 next year.
If an authority, which was prepared to court the unwelcome publicity of an inquiry into its affairs and the report which was made by the Commissioner to the Secretary of State earlier this year, has the choice of letting its rents remain at 75 per cent. of gross annual value or increasing them by another £240,000 in order to keep, at the end of the day, £7,200 of grant, I am quite certain what

157
the answer will be. It will be that the Secretary of State will fail lamentably in his objective of getting these rents up to 95 per cent. of gross annual value. The same position, I understand, applies in Glasgow. These two cities between them must be the builders of at least one-third of the council houses in Scotland.
In Aberdeen the position is even worse. At the present time the rents in Aberdeen, fixed last year, are 60 per cent. of gross annual value. If Aberdeen wanted to protect their grant—and I think they have a little more to lose than Dundee, but still not a large sum of money—they would have to raise their rents to an average of 110 per cent. of gross annual value for the rest of this year, or, if they elected to go for the higher scale for the benefit of rent rebate deduction, they would have to raise their rents to 120 per cent. of gross annual value.
It may be that people will say that gross annual value is not necessarily an end in itself and there is nothing wrong with 120 per cent., but the Secretary of State and the Government could be made to look very foolish by the Aberdeen town council if the council elected to do so, because they could raise their rents to 110 per cent. or 120 per cent. this year, and say, "We are doing this because we are compelled to do so by the Secretary of State for Scotland in order to protect our Exchequer Equalisation Grant, but the Secretary of State will permit us, without any loss of grant, to reduce the percentage to 95 per cent. or 90 per cent. next year, as the case may be." So, the local authority can reduce its rents by 25 per cent. next year. I do not know what the Aberdeen town council will do in these circumstances. But there is something wrong with a Bill, a side effect of which is to raise the rent of corporation houses in Scotland, if it is possible to protect grants by increasing rents this year, and to accomplish exactly the same protection by taking away part of the increase again in the succeeding year.
I propose at the Committee stare of this Bill to table an Amendment which I think will remedy both of these anomalies without any loss of revenue to the Government. I propose, in relation to year 1963–64 only, to make an alteration, which is that the 85 per cent. or the
158
90 per cent. formula, as the case may be, should apply to the year as from August 28, so that the local authority will only have to reach these averages in nine months of this year. It means that they have three months in which to put their house in order and if they do not use the three months to increase to these figures, then the responsibility is theirs, but they cannot legitimately say to Parliament, "You published a time-table which was physically impossible for us to accomplish."
It is a simple amendment but its consequences, I gather, are not quite so simple. It might mean that the Bill could not become an Act before May 15, and the Minister of State, Lord Craigton, said, in his opening remarks, that the first purpose of the Bill was to permit the continuation of Exchequer Equalisation Grants which otherwise would expire at May 15 next. If this Bill does not become an Act before May 15 there will be a period—it may be some days or some weeks—during which there is no authority to pay Exchequer Equalisation Grants. That, I suggest to your Lordships, need be no hardship, because another Amendment can be included in the Bill enabling Exchequer Equalisation Grants to be payable as from May 15.
I know it will be stated that another place has strong objections to making grants payable retrospectively, and I should not normally have made such a suggestion; but I could not do it at a better time, because another place is presently engaged in considering a Bill which does effect this proposal: the grants payable by the Board of Trade in areas of high unemployment are to be effected retrospectively from April 3. So the principle of retrospection has been accepted in this particular Session; and, having accepted it as a major matter of principle on another measure, I have little doubt that they would accept it in this measure purely as a piece of machinery, in order to enable them to accomplish what they had intended to do in the first place.
I am sorry to have gone so long on this and into so many details, but I think it is a most important point; and if the Bill is to accomplish both objectives, of diminishing the demand on the Exchequer to subsidise housing deficits and, as a side issue, to raise corporation council house rents, then it will do

159
so only if it is obviously workable; and that, I suggest to your Lordships, is not the position at the present time.
About the remainder of the Bill your Lordships will be glad to know I have much less to say. I have some questions to ask, and it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, will be able to answer them. He will probably be able to answer most of them when he is closing the debate. Clause 5 wipes out the Exchequer Transitional Grants by the year 1966–67, diminishing them each year by 20 per cent. I understand—I am not certain about this, and if I am wrong the point does not arise—that recently these have been diminished at the rate of 10 per cent. If that is so, why is the reduction in the next four years at the rate of 20 per cent. per annum? I emphasise to the noble Lord that I am not sure of this 10 per cent. position; I may have been misinformed.
Then, on Clause 8, one of the clauses to which the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, referred as arising from changed circumstances in Scotland, the weighting for increases and reductions in population is being applied for the first time to cities and large boroughs, as mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum. I should like to ask if the word "county" in the clause and in Schedule 2, which provides the mechanics, covers the cities, on the basis that the cities are county cities; because otherwise there would not appear to be any reference to cities in this proposal. I suspect that that is the answer, but I should like to have confirmation of that point.
I go now to Clause 10. That relates to derating and I have some queries there also. Clause 10(2) says:
"Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing subsection the Secretary of State may by order provide that in respect of the year 1966–67and such immediately subsequent years, if any, as may be specified in the order the rateable value of the said lands and heritages shall be the amount produced by deducting from the net annual value thereof such percentage of than value as may be so specified…."
At the present moment there is 50 per cent. derating, so the percentage deducted is 50 per cent. Would the wording of this subsection permit the Secretary of State to increase the percentage beyond 50 per cent. in the year 1966–67?
160
Whilst one accepts it as a logical follow on from that clause that if in 1966–67 the Secretary of State was of the opinion that the state of industry in Scotland was such that it would not be a wise thing to abolish de-rating, he would continue the present position, as he has already done, because it was due to go this year on the original intention and the present set-up is being continued until 1966–67. The wording of this proposal would seem to contemplate the Secretary of State might institute in 1966–67 and subsequent years 75 per cent. de-rating or even full de-rating. Is that the position and does the Government think it necessary to take quite so wide a power as that: that things could be so bad in 1966–67 that they would wish to retrace the ground already covered? It is one thing seeking to maintain the status quo. It seems to be unnecessarily wide to be seeking to go beyond that. I should like to know the position there.
Subsection (3) says:
"In an order under the last foregoing subsection different provision may be made for lands and heritages in different rating areas."
Does this visualise for the first time the possibility that de-rating might be continued in certain areas, say of high unemployment, and abandoned in others; that we might, for instance, find de-rating being continued in Lanarkshire, Clyde-side, Dundee or other areas where unemployment was high or where for any other reason industry was requiring exceptional assistance? The Minister did not mention that, and it seems that if that is the intention it is a very wide departure from existing practice, although one which I personally would not quarrel with.
If there is a case for continuing de-rating after it is otherwise due to go, it certainly is reasonable that it should be continued only in those areas where circumstances are such that it is required, and it ought not to be applied necessarily over the whole of Scotland merely to give relief to industries which are particularly hard pressed in certain areas. In fact, I should have very much preferred the discretion to go wider than that. There should be an opportunity of exercising discretion even inside a rating area; it should be given to industries which require it and not every industry, prosperous or otherwise, in a

161
particular area. That was the real objection to de-rating in those areas: that companies making a great deal of money got de-rating and there was no means test applied. It ought not to be beyond the wit of the Government to devise some means by which de-rating is given only to those who really require it. The Minister may have something more to say on that.
I go from Clause 10 to Clause 14. This is the provision relating to agricultural lands and heritages. I am not quite so happy about it as the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, was. It seems to visualise the possibility of an agricultural organisation, say a farm or a company operating a group of farms, maintaining an office quite remote from their farms, from their agricultural subjects; say, for example, a company owning farms in the Lothians and in Fife maintaining its office and doing business from an office in Edinburgh. Would that office, which would be related solely to the operations of this agricultural concern, be considered an agricultural operation? Could it have its office in the centre of Edinburgh de-rated? If that is the position, it seems to be rather an unnecessary one.
Clause 15 is one that I have no difficulty in supporting. It was, I think, a completely anomalous and ridiculous position that when someone was appealing against the valuation that the city or county assessor placed on his property, he could compare it only with subjects inside the valuation area. In these days, when big building organisations are putting up houses all over the country, the easiest comparison for many people to make was with other houses built by the same organisation in another part of the country. Firms like Wimpey's are building simultaneously the same type of house in perhaps twenty different places in Scotland; yet there are twenty different values placed on a particular type of house which they build. In no case, in the past, was the appellant able to cite as an example in support of his appeal what was being done in another area. This new clause gives people that right of appeal, and I think that it will be most generally welcomed by everyone, except the assessors who found themselves in a strong position in having only to defend their own assessment without having it subjected to comparison with what assessors had done elsewhere.
162
Clause 16 enables local authorities to fix their rates even before the beginning of the financial year. I take it, however, that that does not in any way affect the requirement that the local authorities must prepare an estimate of their expenditure for the coming year, and if they have these assessments ready before the end of the year they can proceed, on the basis of the estimate, to levy their rate in April or May, if they want to, instead of waiting until June, July, August or September, as is the position at present. I should like to make absolutely certain that this is not in any way enabling authorities to dispense with the preparation of proper estimates of their expenditure in the ensuing year.
My last point is in relation to Clause 18. What I have to say in relation to that is quite simple: I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, what it means. I have looked at it. It may be that it is a follow-on to Clause 17. I do not know what it means, but it says that a subject is not to be deemed to be occupied by reason only that it is subject to a tenancy or a sub-tenancy. It may be that the intention is to deal with the case where a man has a property subject to a tenancy but cannot get any rent out of the tenants. Such a man, clearly could not describe the property as "unlet". But I should have thought that that case would be covered by the previous clause, in that he would be "unable to recover the amount paid by him to the rating authority". However, I should be grateful for an explanation.
There are many other clauses in the Bill to which I have made no reference at all. That is because they are either innocuous or are comparatively unimportant, although nevertheless necessary. To sum up, my principal objection to this Bill arises from Clause 3. I may at Committee stage be saying more about these percentages. At this particular stage I thought it reasonable that I should not allow my views on what is a reasonable percentage of the fixed gross annual value to come into the argument. I have kept that aside, because I wished to concentrate on the fact that, given the acceptance of the Secretary of State's objective of keeping down the charge on the Exchequer in relation to housing deficits, and the other issue of getting corporation rents up to a reasonable value, Clause 3

163
as presently worded, seems calculatedly ill-advised to attain these objectives.
7.5 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, the attitude of the Opposition in this House is greatly different from their attitude in another place, and I feel that we have heard an extremely reasonable and constructive speech from the noble Lord, whose experience in these matters will, I am sure, cause the Government to give great attention to what he has said. It was because of the attack launched upon this Bill in another place that I felt under some obligation to give support to it.
Last year, when we were considering the Housing (Scotland) Bill, with its Clause 29 giving to the Secretary of State power to deal with what one might call scandalous cases, I said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 240, col. 28]:
"I only wish that instead of confining his activities to this rather drastic action in really scandalous cases…the Secretary of State had drafted this Bill in order to give also a general financial encouragement to ail the local authorities in Scotland to pursue a wiser policy in regard to rents."
I confess that I was misled by the Opposition argument in another place, when they moved a reasoned objection to the Bill on the ground that it was going to cause so large a reduction in the grant to Scottish local authorities, so that I was hardly prepared to hear the small figures that have been advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I can only say that the Opposition would have been much embarrassed had he been in another place and not here, because his argument would most effectively have demolished most of what they have said.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, may I intervene? The noble Lord, Lord Molson, is not quite correct there, because the Opposition in another place were aware of these figures. The Secretary of State for Scotland was good enough to reply to a Question, or had no alternative but to supply information in regard to, it may be, not every one of the local authorities in Scotland, but a large list of them. If it is of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, he will see in the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place for Friday, February 5, in columns 243 and 244, a complete list of the amount in
164
deductions which these local authorities will suffer by way of grant. In many cases these figures are already out of date, but they are out of date because the amount of grant which they will lose is now smaller as the result of subsequent increases which have taken place in the rates. So that is the worst that can happen to anybody. So the Opposition in another place were not talking in ignorance of these figures. Although they are low in some places, they are comparatively high amounts for some of the smaller local authorities, but not for the large ones.
LORD MOLSON: Had they had those figures and done their homework, it is hardly likely that Miss Margaret Herbison would have moved the rejection of the Bill on the ground that [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 669 (No. 33), col. 598]:
" This House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill the effect of which is to reduce considerably the total Exchequer Equalisation Grant paid to Scottish load authorities."
Obviously, the effect of this Bill will be to give great encouragement to local authorities in Scotland to raise their rents to a more reasonable level. I do not apologise far quoting again from Cmnd. Paper 1520, Housing in Scotland, because it is so much better than anything that has been produced by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in England. I do not think that the fundamental principle of housing rents has ever been more clearly stated than in that White Paper. Paragraph 17 starts off by saying:
"The housing problems in Scotland…cannot be satisfactorily tackled until housing finance is put on a realistic basis; in other words, until the rents charged for local authority houses reach a more reasonable level."
It is as a result of these extremely low rents in Scotland that at the time this White Paper was issued private enterprise was providing only 26 per cent. of the new houses in Scotland, as compared with 64 per cent. in England and Wales.
When one looks at the latest figures one sees that the average rent for houses in the whole of Scotland is, as the noble Lard has said, only 12s. 3d. a week, compared to a figure of over £1 a week in England and Wales. Whereas in

165
England the tenant pays some three-quarters of the cost of providing a house, in Scotland the proportion is only one-third. So it is no wonder that the White Paper said, in paragraph 19:
"Apart from placing an unfair burden on the general body of ratepayers, the maintenance of unduly low rent levels for local authority houses has many other effects. In the first place, on the houses themselves; for when a local authority's housing revenue account is heavily in deficit they are tempted to save money on the design and equipment of their houses and to cut out desirable features…"
I do not agree with the views of the Secretary of State that Parliament should not seek to limit the discretion of local authorities in the rents which they charge. Certainly the Bill which we passed last year, and in particular Section 29, has already proved extremely valuable. I very much doubt whether Dundee would have agreed to increase its rents from the figure of only 7s. 7d., as the noble Lord has said, to 75 per cent. of the gross annual value, had it not been for the powers which the Secretary of State acquired under the Act of last year.
An extremely interesting article on this Bill appeared in the Glasgow Herald on November 2 last. The writer said that the Government
"are rightfully protecting the taxpayer, but further vigilance will be needed on behalf of the ratepayer."
This Bill, of course, seeks only to ensure that unreasonably low rents do not result in the payment of an unreasonably high grant in respect of those houses, but it is still left to a local authority to leave rents at a far lower level than that at which they stand in England, with all the ill-effects that have been pointed out in the White Paper. I feel that the Government have taken an important step in the right direction and are entitled to your Lordships' support on this Bill. I hope that this is not the of what they are going to do in this matter, because, as they themselves have said, the great problem of unsatisfactory housing in Scotland will never be satisfactorily settled until rents generally have been raised to a more reasonable level.
7.15 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has given this Bill a welcome, though pitched, perhaps, in a minor key, and I should like to add to the congratulations given him by my noble friend Lord Molson. The noble
166
Lord certainly speaks with an authority which is embarrassing to anyone standing across the Table from him. He made the statement that the general impression of the Bill is that it fixes rents. I should make it clear, as was made clear during the proceedings on the Bill in another place, that while the Government wish to see higher rents the purpose of Clause 3 is to protect the taxpayer against paying Exchequer Equalisation Grant on housing deficits that are due to unreasonably low rents. That is the tenor of this whole Bill. I agree with my noble friend Lord Molson that the Bill will encourage local authorities to raise rents to a more reasonable level.
My noble friend wants us to go further and faster; but we are making progress. I should like to remind him, in relation to this progress, of his own speech in your Lordships' House on May 7, 1962, in which (speaking, of course, on another Bill) he asked [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 240, col. 27]:
"Why is nothing done in Clause 3…to bring financial influence to bear by making the subsidy in some degree conditional upon reasonable economic rents being charged to those able to pay them?"
The noble Lord will at least say that Clause 3 of this Bill does what he asked there.
LORD MOLSON: Hear, hear!
LORD CRAIGTON: As a matter of interest, he was referring then to an average rent of 9s. Now, a year later, the average rent is about 12s. 3d. So we are making progress, and this is just another important step.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if I may intervene, I think the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, said that the Exchequer Equalisation Grant this year would be of the order of £20 million. The Secretary of State, during the Second Reading debate in another place, said that if the local authorities all had the penalty imposed against them the amount of diminution of Exchequer grant that could be extracted in penalty would be £900,000; so that it has a very long way to go.
LORD CRAIGTON: It was £22 million, not £20 million.
LORD HUGHES: That makes the comparison even more odious.
LORD CRAIGTON: The noble Lord spoke of Clause 3 and the administrative difficulty of some local authorities in avoiding loss of Equalisation Grant in the first year without a sharp increase in rents. I thought that he made rather heavy weather of this, and he built a great edifice of injustice, which he then proceeded to demolish by referring to the sanctions in Clause 3 as "a puny weapon". Although I cannot go all the way with him, he has raised an important administrative point, and I think I should give a word of advice and warning to local authorities. If their rents are low now, an increase will need to be made very soon if a reduction in their Exchequer Equalisation Grant under Clause 3 is to be avoided, since their net income will have to average 85 per cent. over the whole year. So that the longer they wait after May 16, 1963, before putting up their rents, the higher these rents will have to be put up if the 85 per cent. average is to be achieved.
Although it is proper to sound this note of urgency, I feel, as my noble friend Lord Molson felt, that local authorities, who have known of this provision at least since the Second Reading in another place on November 27 last year, know what the position is. Moreover, they have had warning since the end of 1961 that the Secretary of State regards gross annual value as a guide to reasonable rent. We all know the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, about Bills that are not passed. But I can remember that when Bills have been introduced, for example to reduce housing subsidies by a certain date, there has been a flood of housing applications received before that date—quite properly—in order to retain the higher subsidy. So I think we must assume that local authorities know how to read a Bill when it is first published, and how to react to it. But this is a somewhat technical point and we can discuss it much more fully in Committee. I promise the noble Lord that I will examine the point most carefully, but I cannot promise any more.
The noble Lord then asked me about Clause 5 and said: why is there a reduction of 20 per cent. in the Transitional Grants? The Transitional Grants for Exchequer Equalisation Grant have remained fixed since they were instituted, and they are now to be wound up over
168
a period. I think that in mentioning a 10 per cent. reduction the noble Lord was thinking about General Grant and not Equalisation Grant. On Clause 8 he asked whether in the variation of the weighted population calculation a city is a county. As I myself said in conversation with him, I thought a city was a county. I must tell him that I was wrong, and that a city is a large burgh for the purposes of the Act. For the purposes of the Bill a city is embraced in the words "large burgh" and not in the word "county".
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, is that absolutely certain? I thought that these authorities in Scotland which were regarded as large burghs were listed and described by name in 1929. It is not my recollection that the four cities were included in that list of large burghs.
LORD CRAIGTON: I have taken advice on this and this is the advice I have been given from the highest quarter. If I am wrong, I will write to the noble Lord; but I have taken advice and I am advised that for the purpose of this Bill, and for the purpose of the Local Government Acts, a large burgh includes a city.
The noble Lord asked, in connection with Clause 10, whether my right honourable friend could vary the extent of de-rating after the end of the period. I was not quite clear what his point was, but the position under Clause 10 is that my right honourable friend could bring in a degree of re-rating that the circumstances at the time justified. He could, for example, bring in 25 per cent. de-rating for Scotland as a whole or complete re-rating for Scotland or parts of Scotland, or 25 per cent. de-rating for certain areas. The position is that we do not know what is going to happen and we must see that Scotland gets a fair deal in relation to the circumstances at the time.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am sorry that I have not made myself clear. I must apologise for intervening again, but because I have not made myself clear I have not got the answer to my question. The power which the Secretary of State is taking is to vary de-rating after that period. At present the extent of de-rating is 50 per cent. Does his power to vary include making that 75 per cent. or 100 per cent. de-rating as well as diminishing? The noble Lord spoke of

169
making it perhaps 25 per cent. or nothing at all, and that was a point that I wanted to establish. Is he taking power to make de-rating greater than it is at the present time?
LORD CRAIGTON: I see. I doubt very much whether my right honourable friend would do that. Subject to correction, "varying" would mean varying up or down.
LORD HUGHES: Varying does not necessarily mean decreasing.
LORD CRAIGTON: The noble Lord asked me about Clause 14, and asked whether an office was an agricultural building. That would depend on the interpretation of the words in the clause
"used solely in connection with agricultural operations".
But it seems to me most unlikely that the court would regard an office as eligible for de-rating. The noble Lord asked how Clause 16 affects the preparation of estimates. It makes no difference whatever.
Finally, the noble Lord referred to Clause 18, and he asked what it meant. I did not know, either; so I have got an answer ready. This clause is intended to ensure that unoccupied property is not denied rating relief under Section 243 of the 1947 Act simply because it is the subject of a tenancy or sub-tenancy. A recent judicial decision Glasgow Corporation v. Perrydale has laid it down that, as a result of the definition of "occupier" in Section 379 of the Act, property is to be regarded as occupied if it is the subject of a tenancy, irrespective of whether any use is being made of it. The court pointed out that if any remedy was wanted for this situation, it must be sought by amendment of the Statute, and this is what we propose. Under this clause, Section 243 will now have effect so as to enable exemption from rates to be given to property which is unoccupied and unfurnished. The fact that the property may be let will not by itself disqualify it from rating relief, though the existence of the lease may be a material factor in determining whether it is occupied.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the property can be unoccupied and unfurnished and yet the tenant might be paying rent for it. Presumably it is
170
also a condition that no money is passing as a result of the tenancy.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, that is right. The only point to establish was that the very fact that the house was let did not itself mean that it had to pay rates.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, is my noble friend sure that he is correct in the answer he has just given? I thought that what he said was that a house could be deemed to be unoccupied even though it was let. If it is let then rent must be paid in respect of it; and I thought the meaning of this clause was that, if in fact it was not occupied, it might be freed from rates in spite of the fact that rent was being paid for it.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I am sorry; the noble Lord, Lord Molson, is right: that is exactly the intention. Farmers had a let cottage and rates were paid on it although the cottage was not occupied, and "let" and "occupied" under the present law are the same thing.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the other point which the noble Lord did not answer, I think because of my intervention on the de-rating aspect, was whether I was right in assuming that Clause 10(3) (I think it was) gave the power to permit de-rating on a regional basis, which does not exist at the present time.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, the Bill refers to areas. That does mean a regional rate.
LORD HUGHES: So this is a fundamental departure?
LORD CRAIGTON: A fundamental departure. I am very grateful to your Lordships for the welcome given to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SAINT DIONIS BACKCHURCH CHURCHYARD BILL [H.L.] SAINT NICHOLAS ACONS CHURCHYARD BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments; a Special Report made, and to be printed.
WATFORD CORPORATION BILL
Reported, with Amendments.

DOVER HARBOUR BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past seven o'clock.