HL Deb 18 June 1963 vol 250 cc1244-71

6.21 p.m.

Order of the Day read for the Bill to be further considered on Report.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DERWENT)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be further considered.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 31 [Check-weighing of certain road vehicles]:

LORD STONHAM moved, to add to the clause: (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, an inspector shall be deemed to be authorised as therein specified if the goods in question have been weighed, or are purported to have been weighed, by means of weighing equipment available for the use of the public.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. Clause 31 gives an inspector authority to have loaded vehicles check-weighed, provided he is authorised to do so by the buyer or seller of the goods. That is the present position in the clause. Your Lordships may recall that in moving an Amendment in Committee on the carrying of scales on these vehicles I made reference to what I regarded as the inadequacy of Clause 31 with regard to inspectors' powers to check-weigh vehicles. The Amendment I am now moving, without going beyond the purposes of Part III of the Bill, would continue the powers to check-weigh vehicles which inspectors at present possess under local by-laws. I think it is necessary to incorporate those powers in the Bill in accordance with the Amendment, and to illustrate the point I should like to mention the type of case which is cropping up now and which, in my submission, would go unchecked in future unless the addition that I suggest is made to the clause.

In one recent case in Birmingham an inspector, acting under local powers, stopped a vehicle on its way from the weighbridge to a farm with a load of brewers' grain and found the weight to be 13 cwt. less than that recorded at the weighbridge. This was due to the fact that the driver had sold part of the load, after it had been weighed, to a private customer of his own: In a case of that kind, under the clause as it now stands, an inspector would not have had power to stop the vehicle and check-weigh, and the offender would almost certainly have escaped detection and no doubt repeated the offence on other occasions.

In two other recent cases, in which scrap metal dealers defrauded firms from whom they bought scrap metal, the fraud was achieved by means of tickets which falsely purported to represent weight at a public weighbridge. I would draw the attention of the noble Lord the Minister to the fact that my Amendment refers to weighing equipment available to the general public. In one of the two cases the dealer had been augmenting his income to the extent of £8 a week for a considerable time at the expense of the customer; in the of her case, there had been underpayment of some £300 in two months, representing 48 tons of metal. In each case tickets purporting to be public weighbridge tickets had been produced. But for the intervention of the inspector, again under local by-laws, this kind of fraud might have gone on indefinitely. I would point out to the noble Lord that the inspector certainly would not have been authorised by the seller in cases of that kind; he was authorised to insist on reweighing only by the by-laws under which he was operating.

It is not only in cases of fraud that a check-weigh power is essential. Under the clause as it now stands, an inspector would not even be able to intercept vehicles immediately after they had left the public weighbridge to check that they had been weighed correctly. It has been found to be quite necessary to have those checks occasionally to ensure that the weighbridge clerks are doing their job properly. I could quote cases where check-weighing immediately after the vehicle has left the weighbridge has revealed quite substantial discrepancies. In the city of Birmingham these powers have existed since 1922, and they were re-enacted in the Birmingham Corporation Act, 1958, which is scheduled for repeal by this Bill. Cases such as the ones I cited would have every chance of going undetected if inspectors were deprived of powers to check-weigh these vehicles except, as is provided in the clause, when they are authorised to do so by the buyer or the seller. I submit therefore that the Amendment is a necessary addition to the clause if we are to avoid providing yet another loophole which dishonest people might exploit with impunity. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 9, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, I know that it is only because the noble Lord knows this Bill so well that he did not quite explain a matter which I think is quite important. Any noble Lord who cares to read the clause will see that it deals only with a road vehicle that is "loaded with goods for sale by weight to a single buyer." The noble Lord knew this, but he did not actually explain it. In view of what I am about to say, it is important that I should do so. A single buyer is, in practically all cases, either an industrial buyer or a constructional contractor, or somebody of that kind. In the Government's view the Bill already contains ample provisions for inspectors to check-weigh vehicles where this is necessary in the buyer's interests.

Under Clause 30 an inspector can require check-weighing of vehicles carrying their load to one buyer in those cases where written quantity statements are required under the Bill. The inspector already has power to weigh those. Under Clause 31, any load sold by weight to one person can be check-weighed if the buyer or seller so wishes. That is the difference between the two clauses. The first clause deals with cases in which a written quantity statement is required by the Bill, and the other clause deals with cases where statements are not required by the Bill and the load can be check-weighed only if the buyer or seller so wishes. I see no justification for extending check-weighing powers beyond this.

If the Amendment is intended to provide added protection for buyers of whole lorry loads, I can only say that this seems to me totally unnecessary. Buyers are free to ask for check-weighing if they wish, and we have no evidence at all that they want more protection.

LORD STONHAM

You have now.

LORD DERWENT

On the contrary, industrial organisations have represented to us that those engaged in industrial and constructional businesses are well able to safeguard themselves against short weight, measure or number. In bulk deliveries of many goods and materials, even though trade is conducted in terms of weight, it is perfectly understood by both sides that the weight will be approximate only. If the weight supplied differs significantly from that ordered, the contractual arrangements normally allow for adjustments of charges either by mutual agreement or through arbitration, or else are based on the assumption that there will be an element of "swings and roundabouts" over a series of deliveries which will be satisfactory to both parties. For this reason, sales for industrial or constructional use have been exempted from Clause 24. There would be no point whatever, from the buyer's point of view, in allowing inspectors to check-weigh these.

The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, also implied—I think he actually said—that the Amendment was sought partly as a means of protecting the consumer by checking on public weighbridge keepers. It seems to me that this would lead to an intolerable interference with industrial traffic for the sake of policing weighbridge operations, and I cannot accept that it would be proper to allow this. For these reasons, I ask the House not to accept this Amendment.

6.32 p.m.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I find the noble Lord's reply astonishing, for two reasons. First, he was somewhat surprised that, in moving the Amendment, I did not read out the clause for the edification of noble Lords present. I have never regarded it as a necessary preliminary to moving an Amendment that the clause should be read out, apparently on the assumption that noble Lords are unable to read. Of course the clause refers to loads to a single buyer. The second astonishing thing the noble Lord said was that there is no evidence that there is a demand for this proposal. He relies on the fact that his Department has had no evidence and he assumes that there is none. There is a considerable volume of evidence implied in the fact that in many parts of the country major weights and measures authorities have thought it necessary and proper to include precisely this provision in their local bylaws. They are anxious that it should continue.

Another astonishing thing that the noble Lord said was that the weights of many of these loads are approximate and there is an element of "swings and roundabouts". The clause as it stands provides precisely that, at the request of the buyer or the seller, an inspector can require a load to be check-weighed. If there were such an element of "swings and roundabouts" about this so that half-a-ton either way would not matter, why have the clause at all?

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, "half-a-ton" is the noble Lord's own expression. I did not mention that quantity.

LORD STONHAM

The noble Lord implied give-and-take: a bit here and there. One of the examples I gave was a shortage of 13 cwt. on one load and another example was a shortage of 48 tons over a period. These are important cases, where buyers do need protection; and the point I particularly made in those examples to the noble Lord, to which he entirely failed to reply, was that in such cases the buyer would not have the least idea that there was anything wrong. He would rely on the fact that a weighbridge ticket was produced—though it might be forged, as it was in one case—and the noble Lord would not authorise an inspector to check-weigh the vehicle. But, in the main, the reason why we have weights and measures inspectors is not only to do their job when requested to do so by apprehensive or aggrieved customers or buyers, but to do the job all the time of protecting the public and ensuring that the standards laid down in this Bill are maintained. This is one more case where there has been a reply quite unrelated to reality, where a not supremely important Amendment, I agree, but one which would be a valuable addition to the Bill, has been refused because

LORD LATHAM moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 16, but what I have to say will comprehend as well Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. This is the: second occasion on which this Amendment and the proposal it contains have been considered by your Lordships, in addition to which the matter has been considered in another connection as regards its effect on London; and it is likely, of course, that the matter will be discussed again in connection with the London Government Bill. We regard this Amendment as most important in removing one of the major defects of this Bill—namely, the decision as to which local authorities shall be the enforcement authority under the provisions of the Bill. This is fundamental to the success of this measure. It will depend largely on how its provisions are administered and how they are enforced. In a matter of this kind, affecting at many different points all the inhabitants of Great Britain, it is important that the administrative set-up should be the best the Minister has failed to appreciate its significance and value.

6.37 p.m.

On Question, Whether the Amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 16; Not-Contents, 38.

CONTENTS
Alexander of Hillsborough, E. Hughes, L. St. Davids, V.
Attlee, E. Latham, L. Shepherd, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.] Listowel, E. Silkin, L.
Burton of Coventry, B. Lucan, E. [Teller.] Stonham, L.
Champion, L. Sainsbury, L. Williams of Barnburgh, L.
Henderson, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Albemarle, E. Ferrers, E. Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Ampthill, L. Forster of Harraby, L. Merrivale, L.
Atholl, D. Fortescue, E. Newton, L.
Bossom, L. Freyberg, L. St. Just, L.
Boston, L. Goschen, V. [Teller.] St. Oswald, L.
Boyd of Merton, V. Hacking, L. Sandys, L.
Colville of Culross, V. Hastings, L. Strathcarron, L.
Conesford, L. Hereford, V. Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Cranbrook, E. Hertford, M. Swansea, L.
Crawford, E. Howard of Glossop, L. Swinton, E.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Iddesleigh, E. Waldegrave, E.
Derwent, L. Long, V. Waleran, L.
Dundee, E. Margesson, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

that can be found to discharge the functions with which it will be called upon to deal. It must have the resources; it must have experience and must be suitable to deal with and discharge the functions and duties.

This Bill, I submit, is really fragmentation run mad. The consumers' protection under it will be impaired and, as was clearly demonstrated in the figures given in the debate on the Committee stage, the proposal and provisions of the Bill will lead to the waste of ratepayers' money. The Minister would seem to have no convincing case in favour of the Bill, nor against the Amendments. In point of fact, he spent a great deal of his time in making the claim, which was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, that the proposals in the Bill were in accord with the policy of the Government as outlined, as he said, in the White Paper on local government functions (Cmnd. 161 of 1957). In fact the White Paper contained no reference to the direct conferment of these functions on county district councils. What it did was to discuss the merits of delegation as distinct from conferment of powers, and having stated the Government's conclusion that the delegation method was the more appropriate generally, it contained the following paragraph, paragraph 12, dealing inter alia with weights and measures functions: Accordingly, the Government propose that borough and urban district councils with a population of 60,000 or more should be empowered to claim responsibility for all the services, with certain minor exceptions listed in paragraph 3, and that where they do so, they should be entitled to exercise the powers with a proper measure of independence, subject, however, to the approval of the county council of the broad policy for the service and, as the circumstances of the particular service may require, of the financial assessment also. It cannot be stated or prayed in aid that that statement supports the policy which is being followed in the provisions of this Bill.

Moreover, the Hodgson Committee expressed itself to a similar effect, that the enforcement should be restricted to the largest units of administration, namely, the county and county borough councils. At no stage was it accepted that there should be direct conferment of functions on a second-tier basis, although, following the publication of the White Paper, there was a tendency in municipal circles to concede delegation of the functions in suitable cases knowing, as was pointed out in the White Paper, that delegation would enable the county councils to retain overall responsibility for policy and for finance. That was the case at the time of the issue of this White Paper in 1957.

We must bear in mind that under the provisions of this Bill the work of enforcement and inspection will be very much enlarged and, in addition to that, of course, the whole structure of distribution, especially of foods, in this country is undergoing very fundamental changes. There are self-service stores, supermarkets and discount traders, and all sorts of new ideas are being imported into the distributive trades. For instance, I believe it is the case that whereas in 1950 there were 600 self-service stores in this country, in 1961 there were 8,800, and they are being added to rapidly week by week.

Not only is it quite clear that it will be more costly for the smaller units to administer the provisions of this Bill when it becomes an Act; there is also the question of the difficulty of finding sufficient inspectors, who at the present time are in short supply. The number available is very much less than the number needed. Recruitment, we are told, is low on the present basis; and, in regard to the expected expansion of the service, recruitment will be very seriously below what is needed. There will, of course, be overlapping between the authorities and there will be, as it were, idle time for some of the inspectors because you cannot divide an inspector into parts and there is no provision for any kind of collective co-operation between individual enforcement authorities.

Although it is urged in support of the Bill that its provisions will encourage local government of the smaller size, as it were, I should like to make the point that the organisation of local government must be based on efficiency and economy and its functions related to area. I am not without some experience of the organisation of local government and, moreover, I should like to say, as I have said on one previous occasion, that my experience of local government is not wholly confined to being a member of the London County Council, much as I was proud of that membership. I was for some eight years a member of a smaller authority, an urban district council, and later of a non-county borough, Hendon, of which I was an alderman.

There is nothing essentially personal in this matter. You could not regard a weights and measures service as being a personal service, domiciliary or otherwise. It is an administrative function largely of inspection and correction and of enforcement, and our submission is that the proper authorities for the administration of the terms of this Bill are the county councils and the county boroughs. The provisions of the Bill are the reverse of this. It seems to me that it is almost ineptitude to the nth degree. This is a Bill for weights and measures but, really, the stupidity of the proposals as regards its enforcement is almost immeasurable. We put this Amendment down, and we shall press it because we feel that otherwise the whole success of the new service and facilities when the Bill becomes an Act is in danger of being seriously impaired, if not seriously damaged. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 17, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Latham.)

6.53 p.m.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, I, too, will, if I may, speak to Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18. I have answered this case before, on Committee, and I tried to see how I could shorten my answer. But I agree with the noble Lord that it is a very important Amendment because it deals with what will be the eventual set-up, and I am afraid that, at the risk of boring noble Lords, I must answer it at length if only for the Record. The clause provides that counties and county boroughs will be weights and measures authorities as in the past. There is no change about that from the existing arrangements. Non-county boroughs and urban districts with populations in excess of 60,000 will also be weights and measures authorities. That is in the Bill. In special circumstances, non-county and urban districts with populations of less than 60,000 and rural districts of any population may be weights and measures authorities if the Board of Trade so directs. That is the effect of this clause.

I would, however, say this, as I said on Committee stage. The general policy was decided after exhaustive discussion by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Board of Trade with all concerned, including the local authority associations and, like most decisions of this kind, it represents a compromise—and we do not pretend it is anything else—between the advocates of centralising as many functions as possible by giving them to the larger authorities, and those who think it desirable, in the interests of a wide participation in local government, that the smaller local authorities are to have as much responsibility as is practicable. Those were the two sides.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, it is not correct to say that these proposals were agreed to by the local government associations.

LORD DERWENT

I did not say they were "agreed to"; I said they were "discussed with".

LORD LATHAM

I beg the noble Lord's pardon.

LORD DERWENT

I was very careful, because the same point was raised by the noble Lord on Committee stage and I gave the same answer.

Reference has frequently been made during the debates on this Bill to the proposals of the Hodgson Committee. I should like to point out that the inspectors of weights and measures themselves stressed to that Committee that a thorough knowledge of the flow of local trade was essential to adequate enforcement and that an intimate acquaintance with local conditions and difficulties went far towards ensuring that enforcement was carried out in a reasonable and understanding manner. This was the case put forward by inspectors of weights and measures, and the Government are convinced that this can best be achieved by the administrative arrangements laid down in this clause.

The main argument in favour of larger authorities has been that they can operate more efficiently and more economically than smaller units. Yet the noble Lord, Lord Crook (who I am sorry is not in his place), during the debate in Committee, said that he knew—I quote his own words; and this is important for my argument— of no complaint on the grounds of inefficiency or ineffectiveness of the present arrangements". If anyone wants to look that up he will find it in the OFFICIAL REPORT of May 6, Vol. 249, column 526. He suggested that the present clause would result in—and I quote again— a proliferation of weights and measures authorities to do the work that is being done perfectly well at the moment by existing authorities ". That was the noble Lord's argument.

I would remind noble Lords that there are in England and Wales at the moment 201 weights and measures authorities. Of these, 59 have populations of less than 60,000. In other words, nearly a third of the existing authorities (about whose work, as the noble Lord, Lord Crook, said, there has been no complaint) have a smaller population than the figure chosen by the Government for the future. If the noble Lord wishes, I can give him the details of these authorities, but I do not want to waste your Lordships' time. If these 59 authorities have performed effectively and efficiently in the past, what grounds are there for supposing that new authorities with populations in excess of this figure are likely to be less effective or efficient? I would also remind the House that the Government's proposals will not result in any overall increase in the number of weights and measures authorities.

It has been suggested that the greater the number of enforcing authorities the greater the difficulty in securing uniform standards of administration. The Government accept this, and it is their intention to invite the local authorities and the professional society of the inspectors of weights and measures to join with them in devising ways and means of dealing with this problem. They believe that it should be practicable to evolve codes of practice which would lead to a high degree of uniformity and efficiency of administration.

It has also been suggested that the requirements of the Bill would mean heavy expenditure out of the local rates on the provision of new equipment and premises, but I would point out that Clause 37 provides for combinations of local authorities for all or any purposes of the Bill. Any number of local authorities can combine under the provisions of that clause, for example to provide expensive equipment. This facility for combination will also help in the detection of offences. Under the existing law some local authorities have already combined to facilitate the investigation and detection of offences. I understand that, for example, inspectors appointed by each of the cities of Birmingham and Coventry and the county of Warwick have been given wide powers of investigation and inspection within the area of the three authorities.

Lastly, there is the question of the number of qualified inspectors which will be required to operate the provisions of the Bill. The Government agree that more qualified inspectors will be required when the Bill comes into operation in a little over two years' time. They do not put a figure to this number because they believe, I think rightly, that this must to a large extent be guesswork and dependent upon a large number of factors. They think, however—again, I think, rightly—that much can be done to reduce the requirements if authorities combine for all purposes, and that still more can be done to alleviate the position if qualified inspectors are taken off such jobs as the licensing of hackney-carriages and pleasure boats, the supervision of markets, the enforcement of various Acts which have no relation to weights and measures, and so on. All these are jobs for unqualified people. There would be no objection whatsoever to such unqualified staff working under the supervision of the chief inspector of weights and measures, but we feel very strongly that the inspectors themselves are all specially qualified, technical men who ought to be employed on their appropriate duties and not on duties where their technical qualifications are not required.

As I said at the close of the debate in Committee, and I repeat it, the Government believe that the arrangements set out in Clause 34 are reasonable. No new factors have been adduced to-day to shake them in this view. They agree that no arrangments will satisfy everyone, but I believe that the clause as it stands provides a workable system which will satisfy most people, and I accordingly ask the House to reject the Amendment.

7.5 p.m.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, before my noble friend exercises his right of reply to the Amendment and to the Minister's speech and also indicates what he wishes to do about his Amendment, there are one or two points I would raise with the Minister arising out of what he has just said. First, it will give him an opportunity to correct me if I misheard him. He said there would be no overall increase in the numbers of weights and measures authorities. Surely he is not allowing for the 32 authorities to be created in London. There must surely be a substantial overall increase in the numbers of weights and measures authorities.

LORD DERWENT

The answer is "not necessarily".

LORD STONHAM

Then there must be different forms of arithmetic on the noble Lord's side and mine. In trying to refute my noble friend's arguments, the noble Lord referred to the fact that 59 weights and measures authorities which are comparatively small ones, for populations of less than 60,000, have performed their duties efficiently in the past. I am not disputing that, but my understanding of the case is that some 25 of those 59 smaller weights and measures authorities are in all probability going to disappear.

LORD DERWENT

When I said "not necessarily" I was talking about overall; I was not talking about London. Although there will be an increase in London there will not be an overall increase because there will be a considerable reduction elsewhere.

LORD STONHAM

I must again dispute the noble Lord's arithmetic and put it this way. There is going to be an increased number of weights and measures authorities outside London—there are provisions in the Bill. He has just been at great pains to justify populations of 60,000, and he will be bringing in an Amendment soon to include even a rural authority, which can become a weights and measures authority. It means there are going to be new weights and measures authorities created under this Bill whn it becomes an Act, and that means an extra number.

LORD DERWENT

New, but not more.

LORD STONHAM

On the other hand, 32 additional authorities are to be created in London, and the only off-set against that, reducing the overall number of weights and measures authorities, is 25 out of the 59 smaller local authorities, to whom the noble Lord referred as having done their job efficiently in the past. It is true that 25 local authorities in England and Wales, caterin3 for under 60,000 populations, administer their own weights and measures departments, and I want to make reference to them. There is considerable concern—as the noble Lord is well aware, because I have written to him about it—about possible redundancies among senior officers who are working now with those authorities which will no longer be weights and measures authorities. The number of such officers concerned is 25 chief officers and about 8 or 9 senior officers—not chief, but who have had experience of administering a department. Those jobs, at least with their existing authorities, will vanish. I am not for one moment suggesting that there will not be plenty of jobs going for weights and measures inspectors; in fact, the fear is that there will certainly not be enough qualified officers to do all the jobs that will have to be done efficiently. That again is an argument which my noble friend put forward for his Amendment. But the particular point that I am on now is that these inspectors, specialists, will become redundant in their particular jobs. They are almost by definition men with considerable experience who have achieved a position, and they will then have to seek other jobs.

The particular difficulty is that, obviously, the new created local authorities will be advertising for their staff, and the inspectors to whom I have referred will have open to them, if they wish, the opportunity to apply for those jobs when they are advertised; but some of them—in fact, probably most—will feel a sense of loyalty to their present authority, and they will not know until probably 1965 whether or not the Board of Trade propose to terminate the position of their own local authority as a weights and measures authority, by which time many of the jobs to which I have referred will have been filled. I am sure that the noble Lord appreciates the point.

What I am submitting to him is that these new authorities should have advice and guidance from the Board of Trade when they are setting up their departments, and one of the best ways of using available manpower, the available experience of existing officers, would be, at the earliest possible date, to make the decisions about the weights and measures authorities who are going to lose their powers, and to find out which officers will be available so that their particulars can be circulated to the new authorities. They will then know who is available, in exactly the same way that we have been doing with considerable success for the last two years in the hospital world, where virtually no senior officer has become redundant because we have adopted this quite sensible practice. I am asking, therefore, that the noble Lord will be able to assure us that some such arrangement will be made administratively so that we can secure the transfer of these experienced officers from their existing authorities to the new ones, in posts which will make the fullest possible use of their experience, and in a manner which will ensure that they will lose neither seniority, salary nor prospects.

7.14 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I have listened with considerable interest to the debate and to the submission that has been made by the noble Lord the Minister. He indicated to us a number of small authorities with a population of under 60,000 that are at present weights and measures authorities. Can he say how many are themselves carrying out the duties of a weights and measures authority? My information is that many of these authorities are, in fact, relying upon the county council to carry out these duties; that they find their position is such that they are unable, or unwilling, to carry out their responsibilities, and because of the arrangements they are able to obtain the support of the county council. Perhaps the noble Lord could give us that information. I am sure that the noble Lord will realise that he can always speak again in your Lordships' House on Report by leave of the House, and we on this side of the House would certainly not prevent him from answering a number of questions that must arise.

There was a dispute between my noble friend Lord Stonham and the Minister as to the number of weights and measures authorities that will come into existence. My noble friend has given a particular figure which the noble Lord opposite has disputed. We can rely only upon the advice and obvious knowledge of the Minister. Can he say what number of authorities will arise because of this particular clause? But the thing that particularly struck me, listening to the noble Lord, was the obvious doubt in his mind as to whether there is correct uniformity in the administration of the present legislation: whether the various weights and measures authorities carry out their duties in a sense of uniformity throughout the country.

On the London Government Bill, and also on the Committee stage of this Bill, we made the case that at present we have been able to obtain a high standard of uniformity, due mainly to the small number of weights and measures authorities within the area. It would be quite mad to divide up this unified element in London, because if the Minister's proposals are implemented and there are to be 32 weights and measures authorities, it would be difficult to get uniformity. No two authorities ever think alike, and we may find that in one street the traders carry out the requirement of the Bill in a way which is acceptable to the weights and measures inspector, yet in an adjacent street, where the traders are in competition with those in the other street, a completely different standard exists. That would be quite ridiculous. When the noble Lord was speaking about uniformity, my mind went back to the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill. There we had a large number of authorities responsible for the provisions of the Bill. In order to obtain some degree of uniformity in the administration of that Bill the Minister of Labour agreed to set up a central inspectorate. As I understand it, the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, was that to obtain uniformity there should be some loose discussion; that there should be created a code. But he did not give us any idea of how that code would be enforced. And, of course, unless there is enforcement of a code it is of no value whatsoever.

I do not know whether this point has been made earlier, but I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, would consider, in view of the number of weights and measures inspectors, and the possible increase in the number of authorities, whether a central inspectorate or a central bureau could be set up in the Board of Trade. It need not be on a large scale, but it would produce a higher degree of uniformity than at present exists—a point which I believe was at the back of the Minister's mind when he spoke, because I think he had doubt in his mind as to whether the proper standard of uniformity existed. I put this suggestion in no way counter to the speeches which both my noble friends have made. I think that theirs was a very strong case, and I should be very willing to support them should they desire to press the Amendment.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, I think it not unfair or unjust to say that this evening, as during the Committee stage, the Minister has not offered any convincing answer to the proposals put forward. He was so impoverished in that respect that he had to fall back on my noble friend Lord Crook and take out of context certain statements made by my noble friend during the Committee stage. But he did not say that, whilst smaller authorities may be able, with difficulty, to discharge the functions of a weights and measures authority at the present time, that is no proof that they will be in a position so to do when the wider and additional functions are required of them.

Moreover, it is the case (I do not know whether the Minister has been informed of this; he ought to have been) that quite a number of the smaller local authorities who are weights and measures authorities are not operating, but are leaving the duties and functions to be carried out by the county councils and other weights and measures authorities. Furthermore—I hope that I am correct in this: I think I am—the Minister referred earlier in his speech to those non-county boroughs and urban distircts with a population of 60,000 and the fact that if they want to be weights and measures authorities they must obtain the approval of the Board of Trade

Clause 38 [Annual reports by local weights and measures authorities]:

7.30 p.m.

LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (1), to omit all words from the beginning down to "Board", where that word first occurs, and to substitute: The Chief Inspector of each local weights and measures authority shall, in respect of each financial year of the authority, make to the authority who shall send a copy thereof to the".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage I moved an exactly similar Amendment to this one, which would require chief inspectors to

and, as I gathered him to say, the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

LORD DERWENT

Those with fewer than 60,000 have to be approved by the Board of Trade.

LORD LATHAM

If the population is 60,000, they can have it as of right.

LORD DERWENT

Yes.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, I must repeat that the Minister has not answered the case which has been put forward, and in those circumstances I must press my Amendment.

7.23 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS
Alexander of Hillsborough, E. Faringdon, L. St. Davids, V.
Attlee, E. Henderson, L. Shepherd, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.] Hughes, L. Stonham, L.
Burton of Coventry, B. Latham, L. Williams of Barnburgh, L.
Champion, L. Lucan, E. [Teller.]
NOT-CONTENTS
Ampthill, L. Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.) Long, V.
Auckland, L. Ferrers, E. Margesson, V.
Bossom, L. Ferrier, L. Newton, L.
Boston, L. Fortescue, E. St. Just, L.
Brecon, L. Fraser of Lonsdale, L. St. Oswald, L.
Colyton, L. Goschen, V. [Teller.] Sandys, L.
Conesford, L. Hacking, L. Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Cranbrook, E. Hastings, L. Swansea, L.
Crawford, E. Hereford, V. Tweedsmuir, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Hertford, M. Waldegrave, E.
Derwent, L. Howard of Glossop, L. Waleran, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

have a statutory responsibility to make annual reports. I then admitted that it would be logical, as the Bill requires, for the statutory authority to make the annual weights and measures reports to the Board, but I pointed out that for many years it had been the direct responsibility of the chief inspector to make a report to the authority, who then transmitted it to the Board. I thought it best to continue this practice, because, under subsection (3) of Clause 41, this Bill makes the chief inspector generally responsible for the working of the Act in his area, and he would, under Clause 39, be held responsible for the efficiency of the system in any Board of Trade inquiry that might be held. Certainly, if he were given independence in this way he would be free to call attention to any defects in the arrangements, and they would thus be brought to the notice of all the members of the local authority.

The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, will remember that in replying to these arguments he gave what I regarded, and indeed described, as a most satisfactory reply, which caused me to withdraw the Amendment, and he may quite properly be wondering why on earth I put it down again. I am putting it down again, because I now find that the noble Lord's convincing arguments in the Committee were ill-founded and that his statements were not accurate.

LORD CHAMPION

Apart from that they must have been very good.

LORD STONHAM

I am going to quote from what the noble Lord said during the Committee stage. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 249 (No. 79), col. 579–580]: By Clause 41, subsection (3), which the noble Lord mentioned, the chief inspector is to be responsible to the local weights and measures authority for the operation of the local authority's arrangements, and it is clearly right that, as part of his duty, he should report to his authority on the work of his department. I then interrupted the noble Lord, as he will probably remember, and asked: Does that mean that, under Clause 41(3), the chief inspector of weights and measures has a statutory duty to report to his local authority? The noble Lord replied: Yes, it does indeed. On that firm assurance I withdrew my Amendment. But, my Lords, Clause 41 ensures nothing of the kind. If the noble Lord recalls, subsection (3) of the clause reads as follows: A chief inspector shall be responsible to the local weights and measures authority for the custody and maintenance of the local standards, working standards and testing and stamping equipment provided for the area for which he was appointed and generally for the operation of the arrangements made to give effect in that area to the purposes of this Act or any enactment falling to be repealed thereby. My Lords, I submit there is nothing there about a statutory requirement to submit an annual report; neither is there anything anywhere in the Bill which requires a chief inspector to report to his authority, or indeed to anybody else. In point of fact, there are authorities who have indicated to their chief inspectors that they do not wish to receive a report, and in such cases it is extremely difficult, indeed impossible, for a chief inspector to call attention to the defects in the organisation for which under the terms of the Bill he is immediately responsible.

In the unfortunate reply which the noble Lord made quite happily in Committee he was in error in another matter about reports to the Board, because he expressed himself as glad that of recent years the reports had been fuller, and that the authorities frequently forwarded them to the Board. This matter is governed at present by Regulation 10 of the 1907 Regulations, and that reads as follows: The authority shall cause the inspector to make annual reports as to inspection and verification in the form given in Tables A and B or in such other form as may be from time to time approved by the Board. Copies of such annual reports shall be sent to the Board of Trade by the authority not later than September 30th in any year. I make two comments on that. The first is that there is, in the regulation, a statutory requirement for the inspector to make an annual report and for his authority to send it to the Board—not frequently, as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said, but every year by September 30. The second comment I would make is that this Regulation No. 10 of the year 1907, this statutory requirement, will be repealed by this Bill. So there is nothing at all, and all the noble Lord's arguments fall to the ground. There is no statutory requirement on the inspector in this Bill, as he assured me—nothing at all.

I come back to the Amendment which I moved in Committee, with all my telling arguments completely unanswered and no case against them at all. Perhaps I had better read this Amendment: The chief inspector of each local weights and measures authority shall, in respect of each financial year of the authority, make to the authority who shall send a copy thereof to the Board. That is what I am proposing by this Amendment, which is to continue the effect of the regulation which has been operated satisfactorily since 1907, over half a century—namely, to place a statutory responsibility on the chief inspector to submit an annual report to his authority, and for the authority to submit it to the Board.

My Lords, I must confess—and it must be apparent from the pleasure with which I accepted the noble Lord's explanation earlier—that in moving my Amendment in Committee I had an open mind. Now, having considered the Government's arguments, or lack of them, I am convinced that this is the proper way to do the job, and to do it most efficiently. I hope that the Government, too, will be convinced by the arguments I have now put forward, and will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 38 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Stonham.)

7.39 p.m.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, may I first of all deal with the question of the present law, which I do not have in front of me, but which I think I explained correctly last time, before I get on to the Bill? I do not have the text in front of me, but I believe I said that at the moment only particular statistics about work done by inspectors have to be sent to the Board of Trade. Those are the compulsory returns to the Board. On the subject of the inspectors' full reports, which at present do not by law have to be sent to the Board of Trade, I said I was happy to think that many local authorities did, in fact, send them complete to the Board.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I will pass a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT to the noble Lord, so that he can see what he did say. I have underlined it. It is in column 579.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, in fact, it is what I have just said, and I now repeat it—I am reading from the OFFICIAL REPORT [Vol. 249 (No. 79), col. 579]: Under existing law, local authorities are required to send in statistics only about the visits made by their inspectors to traders' premises and the equipment verified and inspected. However, in recent years it has been increasingly the practice, I am glad to say, for inspectors to submit fuller reports of their work to their authorities, and these reports are normally, or frequently, at any rate, forwarded to the Board of Trade. I repeat, that is the position. That is exactly what I have said, and it is not in the least what the noble Lord said I said.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him, he has read out exactly what he said on the last occasion, which is what I said on this. He has also read out the regulation, which indicates that the authority does not merely have to send in the reports frequently, but every year, by September 30.

LORD DERWENT

We really cannot waste the time of the House on this. The noble Lord, I imagine deliberately, read out half what I said, and only half. What I said last time was that, by law, certain statistics have to be sent in, but I was glad to say that the inspectors' fuller reports were frequently sent in by the local authorities. I stand by that; and that is the present position. It is no good the noble Lord's pretending that I said something quite different.

LORD STONHAM

I really cannot leave it at that. I did not pretend anything: I quoted exactly what the noble Lord said. Indeed, I handed him the whole Report, which he did not have, in order that he should be quite sure about it; and if he will read Hansard tomorrow and study exactly what I did say, he will find that that is exactly what I said. I answered his arguments and refuted them.

LORD DERWENT

Except that the noble Lord read out only the bit he had underlined, which is half of what I said, as he will see when he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow morning.

My Lords, I shall reply in due course to the main burden of the Amendment, but, as regards the second part, I think I may have slightly misled the noble Lord: that I admit—not with regard to the part I read out, but with regard to what is the statutory duty. Under the Bill, the local authorities are required to report to the Board of Trade, and in practice, of course, they cannot report to the Board of Trade without having a report from their chief inspector. At least, I do not see how that is possible, because without his report they will not know what has happened. That is the position under this Bill. I think I may have misled the noble Lord: I agree with him (I think my wording was a bit loose) that under the Bill there is no statutory obligation on the chief inspector to report to the local authority. But how a local authority is going to report without a report from its chief inspector I fail to see.

The point is this. Under the existing law, as I have said, the statutory obligation on the inspectors is very limited; but, as regards the rest of the report, the statistics and so on, a local weights and measures authority may re-draft their chief inspector's report before forwarding it to the Board of Trade. I can well imagine that a local authority who employ the chief inspector may wish to delete parts of their chief inspector's report dealing with subjects other than weights and measures, or even that they may wish to delete passages on weights and measures matters which they consider unimportant or, perhaps, injudicious; but I cannot think that any local authority would so alter their chief inspector's report as to give a false or incomplete picture of the work done by the weights and measures staff in the area. Indeed, in the course of the debate on the previous Amendment the noble Lord suggested that the difficulty was not very rife or prevalent, although he did say that he had knowledge that this sort of thing had happened on occasion—I am now paraphrasing him. I cannot think that the instances he had in mind were of recent occurrence. In any event, in such cases it is highly probable that the suppressed or altered facts would come out during one of the Board's routine inspections of the arrangements made by the local authority under Clause 39.

But the local weights and measures authority are responsible for administering the weights and measures functions conferred on them by this Bill, and it should therefore be the local authority who report to the Board of Trade. The final decision on the contents of the report should rest with the local authority. They cannot give a report without a report from their chief inspector, because they will not know the facts; but we still think it wrong that they should be compelled to send on to the Board of Trade everything their chief inspector has said even if the local authority disagree with it and even if they think it is wrong. I must therefore still refuse to accept this Amendment.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I will do two things. The first, although I think it is hardly necessary, is to assure the noble Lord that I quoted him quite accurately; and in my view I quoted him completely fairly. I appreciate, and he appreciates, that I could have read the whole column, but the House would not want it. But certainly the extracts from his speech that I quoted were accurate. He has now admitted that he did mislead me (quite unintentionally, I am sure) in saying, as is down here, that there is in the Bill a statutory requirement on the inspectors to submit a report. There is no such requirement. The second point that I want to make is that under the regulations at present the authority must cause the inspector to make an annual report, and the authority must submit its report to the Board every year. That is the present position under the regulations: I am not talking about the Bill.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, with great respect, that is not so. It is only in very minor matters concerning certain statistical information that they have to submit the report, but not the chief inspector's whole report. That does not have to be forwarded at all.

LORD STONHAM

I did not say "the chief inspector's whole report". What I said was that the authority must cause the inspector to make annual reports. That is the first point. Then, also, copies of such annual reports must be sent to the Board of Trade by the authority. That is the position at the present time, and I have correctly quoted the regulation. The unfortunate thing is that now, if we look at Clause 38, we find there is no such requirement on the inspector. The noble Lord says, "I do not see how the local authority is going to submit a report from the Board of Trade unless it gets a report from its chief inspector". That is a reasonable argument, but it does not meet the point that I am making, and it leaves the position very much open and, in my view, in an unsatisfactory state. I should like the noble Lord to look at that particular point again. I am not going to press my present Amendment, but it seems to me that in this one regard the clause needs strengthening, so as to make more clear the statutory duties of a chief inspector in this regard and to ensure that they will not be less under the Bill than they are now under regulations.

LORD DERWENT

I will look at it again.

LORD STONHAM

I am most grateful to the noble Lord, and with that assurance I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 40 [Expenses of authorities and compensation of officers]:

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. The Bill was amended in another place to provide in Clause 34 for rural district councils to become weights and measures authorities in certain circumstances. In consequence it is necessary to include a reference to such councils in Clause 40(1). I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 44, line 19, after ("urban") insert ("or rural".—(Lord Derwent.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 41 [Inspectors of weights and measures]:

7.51 p.m.

LORD STONHAM moved in subsection (1), after "inspector" where that word first occurs, to insert "and a deputy chief inspector". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope it will be convenient if I deal with Amendments 21 and 22 together, and I can put the points quite briefly. Clause 41 deals with the general duties and responsibilities of chief inspectors and indicates that an authority may appoint a deputy chief inspector who, if appointed, may perform the functions of a chief inspector. My Amendment would make it obligatory on an authority to appoint a deputy chief inspector. The chief reason for that is that if, in cases such as sickness or holidays, the chief is for periods away from duty, serious difficulties could arise if there were no deputy to assume the chief's statutory responsibilities—for example, obligations such as safe custody of local standards and the general operation of the system as outlined in subsection (3).

I believe that the terms of Clause 41 would not preclude a local authority from authorising one of their inspectors to perform the functions of a chief inspector for a specified period. If that is so, I should like the Minister to say so and to undertake to inform local authorities accordingly; but it would not be a very satisfactory arrangement. Sufficiently experienced inspectors might not be available and there is the difficulty of additional remuneration for the extra responsibility. The Board could scarcely dictate to local authorities about this, and the period of duty would be uncertain. For those reasons, it would be much better to remove all doubt by saying in the Bill that there must be a deputy chief inspector. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 45, line 22, after ("inspector") insert ("and a deputy chief inspector").—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, I will deal with Amendments 21 and 22 together. I hope I shall be able to satisfy the noble Lord. The Amendments would have the effect of making the appointment of a deputy chief inspector obligatory instead of discretionary. The object of these particular provisions is simply to secure that in each weights and measures area there is one qualified person with overall responsibility assisted by other qualified inspectors who may, if the authority so decides, include a deputy inspector with powers to perform some or all of his chief's functions in certain circumstances. There is nothing in the clause, however, to preclude the local authority (without appointing a deputy chief inspector as such) from authorising at any time any one of their inspectors to perform the functions of the chief inspector for a given period. Such an appointment would, of course, be in the nature of an "acting" appointment as distinct from a statutory appointment of a deputy chief inspector with its implication of permanence. It would apply equally where a local authority had appointed both a chief inspector and a deputy chief inspector. If both these officers were absent for a period for some reason or other, the local authority could, and would indeed be obliged to, authorise one of their other inspectors to perform the functions of the chief inspector for the period of the absence of the two officers.

The local authority could, in certain circumstances, appoint an inspector for a limited period as a chief inspector. In the same way they could, if they do not want to appoint a deputy chief inspector, appoint one of their ordinary inspectors as such. We think that is better than making it obligatory for all local authorities, whether they want to or not, to appoint a deputy chief inspector. I hope the noble Lord will agree with me about that.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, where in such circumstances a junior officer is appointed temporarily to perform the duties and responsibilities of a senior one, may I ask whether he gets extra pay to compensate for the additional responsibility?

LORD DERWENT

May I suggest that that is a matter not for this particular Bill but for the local authority, after consultation with the inspectors of weights and measures' own associations? I think that is the proper way to deal with it.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord, but I am glad my noble friend asked the question, because one of my objects in moving this Amendment was to draw attention to the obvious need for officers who fulfil the higher posts, even if temporarily, to get the proper pay and emoluments. I am satisfied with the noble Lord's explanation and ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, may I, in view of the time and as this may be a suitable moment—I believe we are getting a lot of time on Thursday—move that the Report stage be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.