WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL

HL Deb 20 June 1963 vol 250 cc1407-66

4.50 p.m.

Further considered on Report (according to Order).

Cause 41 [Inspectors of weights and measures]:

LORD STONHAM moved to add to subsection (2): Provided that any such person who is aggrieved by dismissal from office may appeal to the Board against such dismissal and the Board after considering representations from the parties concerned may either confirm such dismissal or direct reinstatement as appears to the Board to be appropriate".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment provides that any inspector who felt himself aggrieved by dismissal from office could appeal to the Board of Trade against that dismissal, and after considering representations from all the parties concerned the Board could, if they thought it appropriate, direct reinstatement. Although the Amendment is rather more ample, and contains other points which were not included in the Amendment I raised on Committee, I am raising this matter again because I hope to persuade the Government to think again on this matter and have regard to the fact that we are dealing with responsible, trained professional men, who are wholly entitled to full justice in connection with their employment and to proper security.

These inspectors are a comparatively small body of trained people—fewer than 1,000. Each inspector has to qualify; he has his number. It is a completely organised and regulated professional body, each member having the highest responsibilities on his shoulders. Therefore, I think they are on a par with, and in the same category as, other officers of local authorities who already have rights of appeal, including, for example, public health officers, medical officers of health, directors of education, town and county clerks and senior police officers. Each of these has the same right of appeal, though to different Government Departments—as it were to different Ministers. In my view inspectors of weights and measures are entitled to similar protection against possible malicious dismissal.

I suggest that this question is particularly in point now that the Bill proposes to make a larger number of weights and measures authorities, many of which will have a population of only 60,000—or, indeed, if the President of the Board of Trade so agrees, less than that. Therefore, you must have regard to the fact that the weights and measures inspectors employed by those authorities will, in large measure, come under the voluntary jurisdiction of people in industry—tradesmen, in fact—who, in their businesses, will come under the authority of the weights and measures inspectors in so far as the fulfilment of their vocations is concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, appears to be looking at me in some doubt.

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

I am sorry: I was just paying attention.

LORD STONHAM

I put a case in point. We might have in a town an extremely worthy grocer, a man of great repute and honour, who would be an alderman of the borough, or even chairman of the urban or rural district council. Maybe through no fault of his own, he might incur heavy fines, or indeed some social disfavour, because of some fault which the weights and measures inspector, in the course of his duty, was obliged to find with the conduct of his business in so far as it infringed the regulations. That could create a difficulty with men not quite big enough. Such a situation might arise, in which the Board of Trade, or the President of the Board, ought to have the responsibility of deciding.

During the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said that the few cases of dismissal of which he had knowledge were due to character defects; and he then argued that the Board of Trade was not competent to judge character defects, but that the local authority were. I am paraphrasing, and not precisely quoting the noble Lord, but I think I am not misrepresenting what he said. I thought that this was a startling confession of alleged Government incompetence, because I should have thought that a Minister, sitting in Whitehall, advised by civil servants, is surely as competent to judge as an alderman and members of NALGO sitting, say, at Wolverhampton. But I do not think there is any doubt that the Board is competent to judge in a case of this kind, as indeed is any Government Department. There is no right of appeal in the Bill, and I would submit that with this class of officer there should be. Their status and responsibilities are equal to those of other local government officers I have mentioned, and they should be given equal rights of appeal and equal security in their employment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 45, line 33, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, I am in complete sympathy with the noble Lord in wanting to give the inspectors as much protection as possible. But perhaps I may re-state the Government view, because evidently I did not make myself quite clear last time. The essence of this matter, in our view, is that the employer of the inspector (this appears at intervals throughout the Bill) is the local authority, and we hold that it is for the employer to decide whether or not it wishes to terminate the employment of one of its inspectors. It is unlikely, I think, though not impossible, that a local authority would dismiss an officer on the grounds of technical incompetence; but if it did so and this Amendment were included in the Bill, the Board would be placed in a singularly awkward position, to say the least of it; and it would put the inspector, as a professional man, in a position that would not apply in any other profession.

Before he can be appointed, an inspector of weights and measures has to possess a certificate of qualification, granted by the Board, to the effect that he has sufficient skill and knowledge for the proper performance of the functions of an inspector. The proposed appeal to the Board against dismissal in the case of technical incompetence therefore could be judged only by re-examination of the inspector; and it would surely be a most unusual step to require a professional man, who may well have been in practice for some years, to re-sit his examination at a later period of his professional life. Moreover, I do not believe that this is a practical problem at all—and I am now talking about dismissal for technical reasons. The few cases of dismissal—and they are very few—of which the Board are aware have all been due to character defects and had nothing to do with the man's competence.

As for dismissal on grounds of defects of character, in the Government's opinion this is a matter solely for the local authority to decide. I do not think that the risk of an inspector's being dismissed improperly—and this is what we are really talking about—is likely to arise, and, if it does, I cannot conceive any circumstance in which the inspector would not get adequate compensation. He has the legal right of redress possessed by any employee in a case of wrongful dismissal, which is apt to be heavy in the case of a professional man. The weights and measures inspectors also have their own organisation, and I think they also come under NALGO, who will stand up for their rights. I have little doubt that the practice has grown up—and it will probably be firmer in the future—that the local authority associations and the employee associations have a code, written or otherwise, of what ought to be done in circumstances where a man appeals; but I cannot see NALGO or any other employee association leaving the matter where it is where there is any possibility that the man will be dismissed. I repeat that we do not need to consider this question of incompetence; we know of no case. As regards character defects, I think that we must, as in other problems, leave that to the employers, the local authorities. Therefore I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment.

LORD STONHAM

I realise the practical difficulties, but it so often seems to me that the noble Lord is answering the case I made last time in Committee and not the case I am making on Report.

LORD DERWENT

It is the same case.

LORD STONHAM

With respect, I did not say a single word this afternoon about professional competence. There is not a single word in the Amendment about whether the man is fit to be a weights and measures inspector. All it says is that anyone who is aggrieved by dismissal may appeal to the Board. If he had been dismissed because he was incompetent he would have to qualify all over again, and if he did not think he would qualify then he would not appeal. As the noble Lord has said, he does not know of a case where a man has been dismissed for professional or technical incompetence.

The one case that may—and I think will, unfortunately—arise is that which the noble Lord described as a character defect, which is probably non-existent and as to which the inspector feels he must have a right of appeal, because if his whole career is not ruined his personal standing among his fellows and his self-esteem is indeed ruined. So the noble Lord did not answer the case at all. He knocked down an "Aunt Sally" which I did not put up and which certainly is not in the Amendment. I consider it was a disappointing reply, and I would assure the noble Lord that the inspectors, who ought to know, badly want this right of appeal. Over and again they have spoken to us about it; and if the snags exist, as the noble Lord says, or if the danger were absolutely non-existent—

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but may I ask the indulgence of the House to say something further on this matter? I do it at this stage because this is a case involving rights of employees, and if a noble Lord tells me there is a certain doubt in their minds I think it ought to be set at rest, if I can do so—although I am not going to depart from the stand I have taken up. The point which I think is new is the possibility of scandalous dismissal—I will not say "wrongful"—because the chairman of one of the committees has been fined, or something of that kind. I think it is unlikely to arise, but I should like to say this. If there were that sort of scandal and the inspector referred it to the inspector's association, it is quite inconceivable that the association would not bring the case to the attention of the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade have power, under Clause 39, to cause an inquiry to be held, the report of which inquiry has to be published. If the inquiry found that there was a scandalous dismissal—and this is really the only new point that has been raised by the noble Lord—it would go a long way in court on behalf of the inspector who was claiming damages, as he would undoubtedly do, to find that there had been such an inquiry and that it had been upheld by the Board of Trade. That would not be in the case of an ordinary appeal, but only in the case of something in the nature of a scandal which would fall to inquiry under Clause 39.

LORD STONHAM

In a case such as that, could the inspector, through his professional association, refer the matter to the Board of Trade for investigation and a report by them, without taking the case to court?

LORD DERWENT

I am just thinking a second about that. Indeed yes, because taking it to court would be the man's own action, using the ordinary law, in a claim for damages as an employee.

LORD STONHAM

I am most grateful for both those replies. I put the second question because I was thinking of a case where a man would not want the whole thing brought out in court—even though he was in the right, and even if he was proved in the right. I knew about the powers of the Board under Clause 39, and I think that, at least, is some part of the answer which I had hoped to get from the noble Lord and which, in certain circumstances, could be of considerable value. Although I regret he has not accepted the Amendment. I am grateful for what we have obtained. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 43 [Performance by inspectors of additional functions]:

5.8 p.m.

LORD DERWENT moved, in subsection (1), to omit paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: I hope that this Amendment will meet the point raised in Amendment No. 25 tabled by noble Lords opposite, so I shall speak to both Amendments together. The practical effect of deleting paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the clause, as is proposed in my Amendment, will be that where a local authority provide a service for the adjusting of traders' weights and measures and put this service under the supervision of the chief inspector, there will be nothing to prevent his delegating his supervisory powers in this respect to any one of the other inspectors in his office—which, I think, was asked for on Committee stage. It deals, in particular, with the difficulty—or at least doubt about the effect of the present clause—which might otherwise arise for those weights and measures authorities which physically separate the workshops where the testing and adjustment is done from the administrative offices of the weights and measures service—and this also was raised in Committee by noble Lords opposite; or in cases where the adjusting work in outlying rural areas is done periodically in temporary centres set up for that purpose. In such circumstances the chief inspector would normally work in the administrative part of the offices and personal supervision by him of adjusting would therefore be both inconvenient and wasteful. I hope that noble Lords opposite will find that my Amendment deals with the Amendment which they have put down, and also with the arguments which they produced on the Committee stage. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 46, line 24, leave out from ("Board") to end of line 26.—(Lord Derwent.)

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, the noble Lord's Amendment does indeed meet the point which we put in Committee. I must confess that, when I first read his Amendment—and I read it two or three times—I still was not absolutely convinced. But my advisers have convinced me completely that it entirely meets the point. This is quite an important point, because in many parts of the country there is this valuable service, which costs a lot of money, by the weights and measures authorities. It is an extremely valuable service, particularly in rural areas; and, as I explained earlier, the clause as it previously stood might well eventually have brought that service to an end. So we are extremely grateful to the noble Lord that he has been able to meet this point which will be very much appreciated.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, this is on exactly the same point. I formally move this Amendment, and merely say that for a person like myself, if there was any doubt at all about the matter, this would remove it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 46, line 32, at end insert— ("Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent any inspector from acting on behalf and under the direction of a chief inspector in the supervision of such a service as aforesaid").—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, I think that if we have both these Amendments it will not quite make sense. So either I shall ask the noble Lord to withdraw the Amendment or I shall negative.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, in view of that, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Claust 48 [General powers of inspection and entry]:

5.12 p.m.

BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY moved to add to subsection (1): (d) stop at all reasonable times any vehicle carrying solid fuel for sale or delivery to a purchaser for the purpose of carrying out his duties under this Act.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I do hope that, in this mood of accommodation and help which seems to be prevalent on both sides of the Chamber, we might make some progress on this particular Amendment this afternoon. I am sure the noble Lord the Minister of State will not take it amiss if I say that I rather think he has got the answer to what I am going to say already written down or typed out in his brief. I am wondering whether I am going to get the same answer quite independent of what I may say.

Having made that remark, may I say first of all that I do not know whether the noble Lord quite realises that, not only in this House but outside this House, among all particular interests and not just political ones, there is a feeling that the Board of Trade has become quite obsessed with regard to this particular matter that I am now going to raise. We cannot find anyone who agrees with their action, and neither, as I hope to show to-day, have we been able to obtain from the noble Lord any factual evidence which has been submitted to his Department on this particular matter. I think the British people are a reasonable people and, although we may not always agree with what is done, if we are given reasons for it, at least we can see why some particular action has been taken.

It does seem, not only to my noble friends and myself, but, I think, to a great many people, that over the past twelve months in another place, and in Committee in another place, and during the stages here and during discussion on recent Questions that I have put to the Government, we have not got any further at all on this matter. I am only emboldened to hope that the fact that the noble Lord is now writing something down means that I may, at least, get some reply in connection with what I am saying to-day.

This is the third attempt that I have made to deal with this particular matter, and in view of the Government's attitude, anyway in the past—one always hopes that this may be changed—I have no option but to spell out the background once again. I am wondering whether the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, really and truly will try to answer the points that I am putting forward, because they are not my points; this is not me being tiresome; this is practically everybody uniting against the Government, and I do not take the viewpoint that everybody is wrong and the Government are right, although I am willing to listen. I hope that the noble Lord—and he nods his head—will really and truly give us the facts on this particular matter.

On Report stage in another place an exactly similar Amendment was discussed. As the Minister will know, the position is that, if this Amendment is not agreed to to-day, the Government will have removed from weights and measures inspectors a right which they have held for the past 70 years. As the House knows, in so far as I was concerned when this particular matter arose here, I took it to the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council, of which I am Chairman. I had no idea what they would say, but I felt that here we had represented all the sectional interests in connection with this matter, and it would be useful to know their opinions. As your Lordships know—and certainly as the Minister of State knows, because I have told him before—on this Council we have representatives of the consumers of solid fuel; we have representatives of distributors, both private and co-operative traders; we have representatives of the National Coal Board, and representatives of the Gas Council. Among the consumer representatives on that Council are included a chief inspector of weights and measures and a number of local authority representatives several of whom are in close touch with their authorities' weights and measures inspectorates.

When this matter was put to the Council—without going into any details—there was not one member of that Council of any particular interest who agreed with the step which the Government are proposing to take; that is, withdrawing from weights and measures inspectors the power to stop vehicles. The only qualification made was that it was desirable that an inspector, authorised to stop coal lorries in this way, should have some means of identifying himself readily to the driver of a lorry travelling at normal speed. The point was made that, if a weights and measures inspector in plain clothes could legally stop a lorry merely by holding up his hand, then the driver of a lorry would feel bound to stop for anyone. We accepted that criticism. But the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council thought that lorry drivers should be compelled to stop for a duly authorised and clearly identified inspector, although they should have as much right as any other driver to decide for themselves whether they would stop for anyone else in plain clothes.

Two means of achieving this identification were mentioned. If I go back to the last time we had a discussion on this, I do not know whether I was being stupid or the Minister of State was being stupid, but I thought we got into a muddle on this, and I should like to put the suggestion forward again and find out what he thinks. The Domestic Coal Consumers' Council put forward these two methods of identification for an inspector stopping lorries. In the first place, there is the procedure authorised by Section 224 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, under which a person authorised by a highway authority, not necessarily a policeman in uniform, may stop a vehicle for the purpose of having it weighed. For this purpose he uses a sign which is authorised by the Minister of Transport and, as I am sure the Minister knows, this measures 20 inches by 30 inches and has the word "Stop" in red letters on it 4½ inches high. I think we are agreed on that. These powers were given for the purpose of checking overloaded vehicles, rather than short weight deliveries. But the point we are making is that this does not affect the principle of inspectors stopping lorries.

The other method relies on the fact that a weights and measures department's patrol vans, which may carry the crest of the local authority, are well known by appearance to coal dealers and their employees. Before going any further, I would merely say to the Minister what I am sure he knows: that these suggestions were put forward by those members of this Domestic Coal Consumers' Council whose own particular authorities already make use of them. Now when a coal vehicle is on the move the inspector, in one of these patrol vans carrying the crest of the local authority, giving full regard to the safety of other road users, draws his vehicle alongside, sounds his horn to attract the attention of the driver of the coal vehicle and signals for him to pull into the side of the road for checking. I have gone into considerable detail on this point, because I do not think we have yet had an answer to it. Members of the Council paid full regard to the objections which had been made by the Government to this Amendment to Clause 48 at other times, but they were unable to accept the reasons put forward.

The chief inspector of weights and measures in one of our largest cities has written to me in some detail on this particular matter, and I think that the House will be interested in what he has to say, because, if the Government are going to turn down this Amendment, I think that the Minister of State must answer these points. They are not points thought up by me, or even by consumers: these are points made by the chief weights and measures inspector of one of our largest cities on this particular matter. This is the first point that he makes: Normally, we operate two patrol vans, on the doors of which appear the corporation's crest, and during the months December to March we find it necessary to augment supervision by means of another van. These vans are well known by appearance to coal dealers and their employees. If the coal vehicle is stationary, the weights and measures van pulls in behind or in front and the inspector selects such number of bags as he requires for check weighing on the weighing machine carried in his van. The second point he makes is: When a coal vehicle is on the move, the inspector, giving full regard to the safety of other road users, draws his vehicle alongside, sounds his horn to attract the attention of the driver of the coal vehicle and signals for him to pull into the side of the road for checking. His third point is: By and large, the Weights and Measures Bill has improved commodity control (perhaps not, in many instances, to the extent which the inspectorate and/or the consumer would have liked), but in the matter of coal supervision the clock has been put back 50 years so far as the ratepayers of this city are concerned—and I would say of any large industrial city. The protection which they expect from a weights and measures department is being seriously weakened.

On his fourth point, the chief inspector says that page 7 of his Annual Report, to May, 1962, shows the number of coal offences for the year to be double the normal average. Going on to his fifth point, the inspector puts forward something which I think we should all accept: Unfortunately, the coal delivery trade lends itself to malpractices, as coal is easily stolen, easily disposed of, and evidence disappears by burning or by mixing with other stocks, so that investigations cannot be prolonged and necessitate on-the-spot decision". He goes on to say that the suggestion of the Parliamentary Secretary for Science contained on page 536 of the Report of Standing Committee B (I have it here, and he has quoted correctly), that …the weights and measures inspector can show his credentials to the police, who then have the duty in all cases of seeing the law is complied with", shows a shocking lack of knowledge of the practical enforcement of coal delivery supervision.

I am nearly at the end, my Lords, but I think these points will have to be answered. The chief inspector goes on to say: It may interest you to know that the local coal merchants' association have become so worried about the rascality in the trade that they have asked the corporation to introduce a scheme for licensing all coal merchants and their employees, so that the trade may be rid of those giving it a bad name". Lastly, he says: At the moment, I foresee that during the bad months of the year, from December to March, I shall have to ask for uniformed police to be seconded for duty in each of our patrol vans, and I am of opinion that Parliament never intended that such action should be necessary to implement the housewives' charter.

Before I leave that matter I should like to say something which I know all parts of the House will share in, and it is this: that, although we are talking of those sections of the coal trade which give it a bad name, we all know that those sections are a minority, and it is that minority with which we are trying to deal. I should be sorry for it to go out from this House—and I am sure every Member would agree with me—that we thought that the coal trade was (what shall I say?) an association of rascals. It is the minority with which we are concerned. I think that such factual evidence from a chief inspector—and the Minister is welcome to see the letter afterwards, so that he knows where it has come from—is much stronger than anything I could say, and I think it must be answered.

Having put that forward to the Minister, and trying to be really systematic, I think we must try to find out why the Government have so persistently, over many months, refused to accept such evidence. I think the logical deduction is that there must be some argument to the effect that this power which inspectors have had all this time has been wrongly used, or, alternatively, that it has been abused. So, to try and get this quite clear, I asked the Government two Questions on this. The first was on May 16 of this year, when I asked the Government—and I quote [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 249 (No. 85), col. 1422]: …whether they have any knowledge of any accidents caused by the exercise by weights and measures inspectors of their power to stop coal lorries on the highway and, if so, whether they will give statistics of all such accidents within the last five years". As the Minister will know, although he himself did not give me the reply, the Answer I received was that the available accident statistics do not show that any accidents have been caused in this way. In other words, my Lords, the answer was, "No".

The Second Question that I put was on May 20, when I asked the Government [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 250, col. 1]: …whether they have any knowledge of any occasion within the last five years on which highway authorities have found it necessary to ask weights and measures authorities to instruct their inspector to pay mare regard to the needs of traffic movement when stopping coal lorries on the highway". If I may paraphrase the Answer, it was, "No". I will not weary the House by reading it all: it is here if it is wanted. So we found, trying to pursue the matter as to why the Government were withdrawing this right held by inspectors for over 70 years, that they had no evidence that this right had been misused or that it had caused any accidents.

Then, my Lords, looking at the Committee stage in another place, I noted—and I am sure the Minister knows this—that the Parliamentary Secretary stated that strong representations had been made to the Board of Trade on this matter by the Ministry of Transport and members of the Road Federation. I can give the noble Lord the reference numbers if he wants them. One would expect that, if it is stated that such representations were made, facts must have been given to support those representations. So we thought it would be helpful, in building up our own case, if we could find out from the Minister what these facts and what these representations were. I am sorry I have to weary the House with May 20 again, but on that day I asked the Government (col. 2): …what evidence was supplied to the Board of Trade by the Minister of Transport concerning the suggested withdrawal of the right, held by inspectors of weights and measures for seventy years of stopping vehicles on the highway. I do not wish to be discourteous, particularly in his absence, to the Minister who replies, but we had several columns of Hansard on this and got nowhere. My question, as I said, asked for evidence and the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in replying said that he did not refer to evidence and he gave me none. No evidence was given to the Board of Trade by the Ministry of Transport on this particular matter, according to the Answer, and it would seem that either the Parliamentary Secretary in another place was referring to representations with no evidence, or he made a mistake. If he did not make a mistake, and he did give evidence then I think the House is entitled to ask what that evidence was.

I come to the Road Federation who also made strong representations, according to the Parliamentary Secretary. This time we had the Minister of State to reply, and, as he knows, on May 21 I asked him (col. 138): …what representations have been received by the Board of Trade from the British Road Federation concerning the suggested withdrawal of the right, held by inspectors of weights and measures for seventy years, of stopping vehicles on the highway; and if any representations to the contrary have been received. I am going to make a confession. If I did not like the noble Lord, I would have said that he was very pompous when he answered, and that he really thought he had "slapped me down". I always think that one "slaps people down" only when there is no justification for the answer. I hope that he is going to be especially charming in his reply to-day and give me the details.

To come back to what the Minister did say, he stated that the Board of Trade had received no formal representations from the British Road Federation. He went on later to say (I think I am quoting him correctly) that the British Road Federation were in sympathy with what the Government were doing. But we got no representations, and no facts at all. The only fact we got was that various representations to the contrary had been lodged with the Board of Trade.

One is nothing if not persistent, and I hope that one is also always reasonable. So, after not getting very far on this, I pursued the Minister outside this Chamber to see if we could get a little further. I tried to sort out with him where we were on this question of the power of persons authorised under Section 224 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, to stop vehicles by means of the road sign described in Section 51 of the Act. The Minister said—and I would agree with him here—that snap-checks are important in detecting the kind of offences we are discussing. But he went on to say (I have his letter here; and no doubt he has a copy) that "surprise is precisely what we cannot tolerate in stopping a moving vehicle in modern conditions". But, my Lords, this really will not do. It is absurd to suggest that the need for snap-checks necessarily involves surprise, in the sense that the inspector jumps out from behind a hedge and brandishes the sign in front of a lorry. Is he really thinking that the inspector jumps out on to the M.1 and holds up a lorry going at a good rate? This is just not intelligent.

LORD DERWENT

If he is not to do it suddenly, then how is he to use it?

BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY

This will not do. If he was on foot, an inspector would stop a lorry that he wanted to check while it was 100 yards or so away. He could hold up his sign so as to give the lorry ample time to stop safely.

The Minister has not been able to quote me one example of any accidents or malpractice arising from an inspector exercising his rights. But if, as is more likely, the inspector was in his van he could overtake the lorry and display the sign at the back of the van, so giving ample time for the lorry to stop. Obviously everything depends on whether the power is used sensibly. On that we all agree. But the Government have admitted that they possess no evidence that the inspectors' powers, as used at present, have ever caused either an accident or trouble in impeding the flow of traffic. Not one example has been given by the Government in answering four Questions tabled for that purpose. The noble Lord says that surprise is something we cannot tolerate in stopping a moving vehicle in modern conditions. But such an attitude overlooks the power of the police who do exactly what it is proposed the inspector should do. For example, if the police see a car displaying "L" plates and there is no passenger then no trouble arises because they use their powers sensibly; but they stop that car suddenly to find out why the driver is there with nobody else in the car with him.

I would stress that the powers asked for in this Amendment would be mainly needed and used in residential areas, and not on roads with fast-moving traffic. I am so anxious that the noble Lord should have a chance of being helpful that I am wondering whether he would be prepared to look at this Amendment, but with the imposition of conditions to prevent inspectors from exercising their powers on trunk roads, or even on all "A "-class roads. I do not know what my noble friends will feel about that, but we want to get somewhere on this matter, and I hope that when the noble Lord replies he will deal with what I have put forward to-day and see if he can meet us on this matter. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 48, line 47, at end insert— ("(d) stop at all reasonable times any vehicle carrying solid fuel for sale or delivery to a purchaser for the purpose of carrying out his duties under this Act.").—(Baroness Burton of Coventry.)

5.37 p.m.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, may I start by agreeing with the noble Baroness that this is not a political question. Before I start the main part of my argument, I plead "Not guilty" to not having had this matter debated between the noble Baroness and myself on previous occasions; because, so far as I am concerned, the opportunity was not offered. May I also say, with a great deal of respect to the noble Baroness, that if she got the wrong answers to her questions, I think, having looked at the questions again, that she put down the wrong questions to get the answers she required. But I am not sure that the answers were, in fact, then available. The noble Baroness also said to-day that she had not seen any evidence in favour of the Government's case. Of course, that may be because she has not looked in the right places, but there is plenty of it if she went in search, although I am not suggesting that she should go in search; but I intend to say something about that. I intend to reply at some considerable length, as we have not debated this matter before, and I will try to answer, if I can, all the points raised by the noble Baroness. I hope when I have finished, although I am not going to give way, she will not think it is because—as she does at this moment—I am being purely pig-headed about it. There is a strong case the other way.

This is really, in so far as we at the Board of Trade are concerned, a battle of opinion between the consumer protection experts, such as the noble Baroness, and the Council, who have a very strong case—I agree with that—and the traffic experts, who also, in our view, have a very strong case. This has been more worry to me than any other part of the Bill, and we have had endless discussions with other Ministers. I am afraid that, on balance, we remain convinced that it would be wrong to allow inspectors to stop moving vehicles.

Powers to stop vehicles are very carefully circumscribed by road traffic legislation, for reasons of road safety and of security from theft. We have had a series of Road Traffic Bills of various kinds, but all have agreed on this question of stopping. On the danger of the theft of lorries and loads, a Member of Parliament told me recently of a case in a London district of the driver of a lorry who thought that an inspector was stopping him, when in fact it was a thief, who knocked him on the head and stole the lorry. As your Lordships know, the stealing of lorries—I do not mean just coal lorries—is becoming what one might call "big business ".

LORD PEDDIE

My Lords, on the same argument, would the noble Lord suggest that the police should be restricted in their right of stopping vehicles?

LORD DERWENT

I shall come to the police in a minute. I think all noble Lords would agree that controlling traffic without causing accidents or traffic jams, with the present congestion of our roads, is a highly skilled job. The only people trained to do that are the police, and only uniformed police have power to stop vehicles.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, has the noble Lord forgotten the school-crossing patrols?

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, I wish noble Lords would allow me to get on with my argument, because otherwise we shall be here all night. I am trying to answer the noble Baroness's points. The Road Traffic Act, 1960, gives general power to stop vehicles on the highway only to a police constable in uniform and a limited power to a school-crossing patrol. A school-crossing patrol is not allowed to stop an individual lorry, but to stop the traffic—and that is quite a different thing. It would be inconsistent to give a power to weights and measures inspectors which is denied to other officials more closely concerned with road traffic—for instance, the Ministry of Transport's enforcement staff who supervise the safey of buses and goods vehicles. These officials cannot stop moving vehicles; they can address them only when halted or get a policeman to halt them.

We hold, further, that the power in existing legislation which allows inspectors to stop vehicles carrying coal is out of date. In 1889, when this power was granted, problems of traffic and traffic control were quite different. Coals were carried by horses and carts, and the inspectors were on foot. Now they are nearly always in cars. In practice, it has been found that enforcement by inspectors can often be carried out either at the point of despatch or at the destination. Coal lorries operating along streets in residential districts are frequently stationary and the driver would be contravening Clause 49 if he drove away after an inspector had asked to look at his delivery notes or check his load.

The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, told the House than in two cities this system is used, fairly often in Glasgow and almost every day in London. I now discover that, as a general rule, in London it is the common practice for inspectors to draw up alongside lorries already stopped by traffic lights, to tell the drivers to pull in over the lights and then inspect their lorries. That is the practice at the present time and there is no reason why this practice should not continue. It would not contravene Clause 48(7). If a special investigation has to be made where, for example, something is already known about a load, the inspector can always find a policeman, because he is in a car.

The noble Baroness referred to the power provided under Section 224 of the Road Traffic Act. I do not think that an arrangement of this kind would be practicable in the case of weights and measures inspectors. The sign in question is a large rectangular one, 30 inches by 20 inches, with 4½-inch letters, and it is intended for use at a roadside check point. As a rule, it would be set up at a reasonable distance in front of a lay-by, so that a driver can pull into the side of the road and stop in an orderly and safe manner. The essence of it is the conspicuousness of the sign, both from the point of view of road safety and of common fairness to the driver, who is under an obligation to stop. It is a stop check, and from what has been said in this debate, I do not think it would be much use in detecting offenders with coal lorries. The inspectors might set up the sign and wait all day without a coal lorry coming along. The inspectors need to surprise offenders. That is why, even under this Bill, the driver would be committing an offence if he did not pull into the side over the lights, if the inspector told him to do so.

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, I know that the noble Lord does not like being interrupted, but this is an important point. He says there is nothing in the Bill which prevents inspectors from halting somebody who has already stopped at traffic lights and asking him to pull into the side of the road. Could he quote his authority?

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, if this Amendment is not passed, an inspector can tell any coal lorry driver who is stopped that he wishes to inspect his load. This is often done at traffic lights, and the inspector can continue to do it in this way. If the driver does not stop after being told to do so by an inspector, he is committing an offence. I am only saying what happens in practice. If the driver refused to move from where he was, doubtless the police would have something to say.

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, I accept that the inspector has the right to stop a driver and that if the driver goes past the traffic lights and does not stop he is committing an offence by that fact. But it says in the Bill: Nothing in this Act shall authorise any inspector to stop any vehicle on the highway. So how can a driver commit an offence when he refuses to stop for an inspector?

LORD HAWKE

The inspector can shadow him until he does stop.

LORD DERWENT

If the noble Lord will look at Clause 48(1) and Clause 49(1) he will see that the two together give the combined power. The point is that the lorry is stopped, and it has not been specifically stopped among a lot of other traffic. The whole of the traffic has been stopped by the lights. It is legal to continue that practice, which is quite common now, because, first of all, the inspectors are in cars and find it a convenient way of doing it; and secondly, it stops getting a lorry into the side in the middle of a lot of traffic. This question of stopping a moving lorry in other traffic is a highly skilled job. It is for that reason that the Road Traffic Acts insist that only a police constable in uniform shall do it. They are the only ones who can do it. The school crossing people are allowed to stop the traffic; and if the whole traffic is one lorry, then that's that. But they are not allowed to pick out a lorry from other traffic and stop it, because it is technically much more difficult. It is easier to stop a flow of traffic than to stop a single lorry.

May I say this on another point raised by the noble Baroness about whether we can differentiate? It is a new point to me, but I have been thinking about it while noble Lords have been speaking. It is the question of whether you can do it on trunk roads and not on side roads. My first inclination is that if you give the power it might, in many circumstances, if there is a lot of traffic, be safer to stop on a wide road than on a narrow road. It is a difficult one for me to answer, but I think that might well be the case. Of course, the quiet backwater, yes; but that is a particular class of road. In any particular class, one road might be easy and another one difficult—

BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY

I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, but would he deal with the example given to me, which I quoted, of what happens in one of our Northern cities, where the weights and measures inspectors are in vans which carry the crest of the local authority and are used for this purpose.

LORD DERWENT

As to whether, because you have a crest, it is more difficult to approach the—

BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY

No. There were two suggestions put forward. The first, which we have just discussed, was that this could be done by exhibiting a sign. The alternative method was that many weights and measures inspectors travel about in vans carrying the crest of the local authority. These are known to the coal merchants, and they pull in.

LORD DERWENT

I do not think there is any obligation, except by the local authority, on the inspectors to travel about in those vans. I think the local authorities like the inspectors to travel in those vans, but I do not think it is necessary by law.

BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY

I am trying to find out what argument the noble Lord will use for saying that that is not a starter.

LORD DERWENT

Obviously they have to be alongside before they can see that crest.

BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY

But this method has been operating for years.

LORD DERWENT

I know it has been operating for years. But we are talking about when you are not allowed to stop a vehicle, and to have the crest on when you draw up alongside a stationary vehicle does not affect the matter, because if the man drives off when he has been told to pull in and have his load examined, he is committing an offence.

Then there is the question of the notice in the back of the car. It was suggested that something should be put into the car to signal to the driver to stop. What is allowed in the way of signals of which one must take notice is laid down in the Highway Code. I do not think a proliferation of signals would necessarily help. After all, a driver has only to say that he was paying attention to the movement of traffic and did not see the signal, and you will find it difficult to prove that he did.

LORD CROOK

My Lords, I do not follow this. I do not know whether the noble Lord has been into one county where the police have made use of electric signs in the rear of their cars showing the word "Police" and the word "Stop". They are used. They stop people in this way, and they are duly prosecuted.

LORD DERWENT

In that case, it is true, if you see a police car. I am not certain whether, in fact, it is illegal if a moving police car has that notice in it and you take no notice of it. If they signal you to stop, you have to stop, because it is a police car; and one normally stops because one does not want to get into trouble. But we are considering here the coal driver who is deliberately blind. If it was not a recognised signal, he may say that he has not seen it. As the noble Baroness knows, they are up to all the tricks.

The fact of the matter is that we have had to make up our minds whether the traffic considerations outweigh the consumer protection considerations. Perhaps I can say this before I sit down. If we are wrong in the decision we take, somebody may get swindled by a dishonest lorry driver. If, on the other hand, we allow it, and we are wrong, somebody is going to get killed. We have, on balance, come down in favour of the traffic experts and not the consumer protection experts.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, I came here feeling that the noble Lady had a good case, and I supported her on previous stages of the Bill. Now, the length of her argument has made my noble friend come clean, and his argument has convinced me that his is the right course. The only thing that worries me is that we have frequently debated in this House the question of unserviceable lorries on the road—lorries which are over-weight, with bad mechanism and so on—and it is a little disquieting to hear that the Ministry of Transport's own inspectors are not going to be able to stop moving lorries in order to check them. Having heard what my noble friend has said, I realise it is probably dangerous for them to try. But it is disquieting to think that there will be that lacuna in control of these lorries. I do not believe, from the consumer protection point of view, it is of great importance that the inspector should be able to stop the coal lorry while it is moving. I believe that, in practice, he will trail along after it, and as soon as it stops to make a delivery, he will then pounce. The advantage of being able to stop the moving vehicle is, to my mind, so marginal that I do not think it worth while, if we take into consideration these undoubted traffic difficulties that my noble friend has pointed out. Therefore, I, for my part, hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the Amendment.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, I should like to support the noble Baroness in the Amendment which she moved, as I thought, most impressively and convincingly. I did not think the noble Lord the Minister really answered the points which the noble Baroness made. It was, I think—I say this with respect—very nearly an exercise in equivocation. In short, the situation is that the inspector can stop the vehicle only when it is stopped.

The Minister gave no evidence of this alleged terrifying danger on the roads as a result of the operation of the power to inspectors to stop vehicles. After all, since 1889 it has been possible to stop vehicles employed in the coal trade, and while conditions now are very different from those in 1889, the difference is not so great if you compare it with 1936, when the Weights and Measures Act was passed, which gave power to stop vehicles loaded with sand or ballast. So far as we know, the local authorities have found no increase of danger on the roads as a result of the conferment of that power to stop vehicles with sand or ballast; and the local authorities, who are also in some cases the highway authority and the education authority, have made no suggestion that this power to stop vehicles should be withdrawn—which is what is proposed under the Bill—on the ground of increased danger to the users of the highways or to children going to school. No evidence has been adduced.

On the other hand, we know that the local authorities who are also weights and measures authorities, deplore the provisions in this Bill, especially Clause 48(7). It is suggested that this power should be taken away from the inspectors, because it is proposed to repeal the Acts of 1889 and 1936, and to repeal local Acts which give the local authorities in certain cases power to stop vehicles. All this is to be removed, as it were, from the protective structure for the consumer.

LORD DERWENT

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, I know that he does not want to make an error for the Record; but in fact the Weights and Measures Act, 1936, did not give powers to inspectors to stop ballast lorries.

LORD LATHAM

If that is the case I must withdraw, but I have been advised that what I said was the case. In any event, it is suggested that this power should be taken from the inspector because of the increasing theft of lorries and the theft of goods which may be on the lorries. That is all very desirable, and naturally we are disturbed at the increase of crime in the way of stealing lorries and their contents. But the burden of that should not be placed upon the consumer, and we must not admit that we can organise ourselves in a decently ordered and properly conducted society only by removing some of the protective facilities which exist for the consumer.

It seems to me that the proposals in this Bill can be fairly described as a "charter for the cheat". We know, of course, with all respect to the coal trade—and I associate myself in that regard with the expression of the noble Baroness—that it is the case that proportionately there are more fraudulent actions as regards the coal trade than there are in regard to any other trade, and it is unfortunately the poorest of the people whom they defraud. As I said, the proposals in the Bill are almost a charter for the cheat.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord, because he really is grossly exaggerating this? If he is talking about the poorest, it is the poor who buy their coal in 1 cwt. lots; and for a 5-ton lorry to stop each time to deliver a 1 cwt. lot it seems that it must stop about 60 times. So the inspector has a wonderful chance of picking it up.

LORD LATHAM

The noble Lord seldom illuminates a question when he intervenes—and I am sorry to have to say that. But, of course, it is from these people that the itinerant vendors of coal draw most of their trade. It is the poorest people who will suffer as a result of the removal of these protective facilities. In short, the cheat will be able to "cock a snook" at the inspector, to laugh at him and then go on applying his nefarious trade. It really is quite incomprehensible in this year of 1963, and in the name of protecting the consumer, that we should be considering the adoption of the proposals in this Bill.

6.5 p.m.

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, my instincts in the beginning, I must say, were against the proposals of my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry, because I do not like the idea of giving power to, or allowing power to be retained by, people other than the police to stop normal traffic on the roads. But I have listened with great care to her arguments on both occasions, and particularly to-day. Subject to what the Minister had to say, she convinced me that there is a sound case made out for doing what she proposed. I then listened with a great deal of attention to the Minister's rebuttal of the facts adduced by my noble friend. So far as I can make out, there were five of them. I did not put them down in any specific order, but traffic control was one of them. He said that to have unskilled and untrained people stopping the traffic was bad for the general movement of traffic and to the detriment of the public.

Having asserted that it was a skilled job, and that only the police could do it, he then, in answer to an intervention by my noble friend Lord Stonham, made a rather curious assertion in reference to school crossings inspectors; that it is easier from the point of view of traffic control to stop a lot of traffic than to stop a little. That seemed to me rather odd, for I should have thought one could snarl up traffic very much more easily by walking out into the middle of the road at a school stopping when a great deal of traffic was coming than by walking along the side of the road when there was one lorry coming and telling it to stop.

LORD DERWENT

I do not know why the noble Lord refers to one lorry coming. What I said was when one lorry, among many others, has to be stopped. That is quite different.

LORD WALSTON

It obviously depends whether the weights and measures inspectors are sensible people, and wait until there is a lot of traffic before they do it, or choose their places more sensibly. The only point I should like to make is that I do not accept the fact that although people can be trained as school crossing inspectors to hold up a lot of traffic it is impossible for weights and measures inspectors similarly to exercise intelligence and common sense in the stopping of vehicles. Furthermore, on that point the Minister has given us no evidence from those responsible for the movement of traffic—from chief constables and people of that kind—to show that congestion in their area is being caused by this practice, and that they would like it stopped. On that point, his argument fails entirely to convince me.

He then brought up this question of stealing. Admittedly, stealing had also passed through my mind. We read of a certain amount of lorries being hijacked on the roads by unauthorised people coming out into the roads, stopping them and going away with them. I was a little sceptical about the stealing, because the average coal lorry carries 5 or 6 tons, and as the price of a ton of coal, if sold legitimately—not the stolen product—is about £10 a ton, the total value of the contents of a coal lorry is unlikely to be more than £50 or £60. I do not think it is likely that with so many lorries with valuable loads going round the countryside the thief would bother to take a coal lorry and get £50 or £60, when he could by doing the same thing take whisky or cigarettes worth several thousand pounds. I was prepared to be convinced if the Minister had said, "Here are the observations of chief constables. Here are our statistics. So many coal lorries have been stolen". What he said was that somebody had told him—he thought it was a member of Parliament—that someone had told him of some coal lorry being stolen. That cannot be evidence for rebutting the case for this Amendment.

We come to the third point. The inspectors can still, according to the noble Lord, stop these lorries at traffic lights.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, they do not stop them at traffic lights; they are stopped at traffic lights. It is quite different.

LORD WALSTON

The argument is concerned entirely with places where traffic is fairly congested, because where it is not congested it would not occur. There is heavy density of traffic at traffic lights and at that moment the traffic is fairly heavy. It is not always possible in following the lorry to get alongside it. Even supposing the inspector were able to get alongside and lean across and lower his window and say, "You must stop", the lorry driver will not stop there, because if he does he will be holding up the traffic and getting into trouble with the police and doing exactly what the noble Lord is trying to avoid. I will not enter into the legal argument as to whether he will be committing an offence. By the time the inspector can roll down his window, catch the attention of the driver, produce his credentials to make sure he is a duly authorised inspector, the chances are that in nine cases out of ten the lights will have changed and the lorry moved on. I do not think this can be taken as a very serious argument in rebuttal.

We come to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that all that is needed is to follow the lorry to its depot or its next stop. If it is a decent, bona fide lorry and the driver has nothing to worry about it will go on; when he sees the inspector following—and the drivers know these inspectors and what their vehicles are—he will go on to the next stop, and all is well. But if he is one of these disreputable characters—and I have no knowledge as to what the proportion is—he will see in his mirror this man following him and will not stop at the next place to deliver short-weight coal; he will drive on to an area which he knows is outside the area of the authority's inspector. So there again the fourth argument fails completely.

The final point which the noble Lord made, having tried to convince us with these other, I would suggest, extremely poverty-stricken points, is that if it is a question of deciding between saving lives on the road or housewives occasionally having short-weight coal, he would go for saving lives on the road—and so would I. But what evidence has he for suggesting this has caused any loss of life at all? When he was specifically asked for figures he said there were none. So he is coming before your Lordships to-day, not as a responsible Minister should, I suggest with all respect, to say, "The evidence is here. This is a serious matter. We have studied statistics. We have obtained them from the road traffic authorities, from the people responsible for collating statistics of accidents and the rest, and there tare so many accidents which have occurred in so many areas over the last five years, so many people killed. Do you want this to go on?" He does not say that at all. He does not even say he talked with somebody who might have been a Member of Parliament, who once said somebody had been knocked down by a lorry. He produces not one jot or tittle of evidence but simply makes a rather emotional appeal based on no evidence. That cannot convince anybody who has followed this discussion. It certainly has not convinced me.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this Amendment; I wanted to save my energies for the deletion of subsection (7). And indeed I knew the case would be fully dealt with by my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry. I was not then aware of the completely devastating answer my noble friend Lord Walston would give to the alleged points of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. But I do now want to put one or two things to the noble Lord arising out of the discussion. First, I would ask him—I am sure the House will give him leave to answer—where he gets his facts from. My noble friend Lord Walston said he had not produced any evidence. But whose advice in this matter has he taken? We were told just how the lorries were stopped by the weights and measures inspectors when they came into a lay-by. I do not say that does not happen. Then we were told that when a coal lorry is stopped at traffic lights the weights and measures inspector comes up in his car, presumably takes his eye off the lights—

LORD DERWENT

It happens every day now.

LORD STONHAM

I am just visualising the situation. Still the noble Lord has not told me. But here we are asked to accept this as a serious reason for refusing this Amendment. Consider the people that we have in mind. On the one hand, not terribly highly paid but very experienced and responsible inspectors of weights and measures, trained people, who are out on the roads for the purpose of catching petty crooks. The noble Lord talks of people being stopped at traffic lights and the weights and measures inspector presumably leaning across on to the nearside of his car, because presumably the lorry must be on the other side, and establishing who he is and telling the coal lorry driver to drive into the kerb on the other side of the lights. This is the kind of set-up which the noble Lord thinks is a proper way of doing this job. It is more like something little boys used to call cowboys and Indians, or cops and robbers, than a responsible weights and measures inspector carrying out a responsible duty for a local authority.

The noble Lord must visualise the situation he has described. The car driver drives on across the road assuming the coal lorry is going to follow. Many traffic lights are at road junctions, and it is a virtual certainty that if a coal lorry driver knows there is a weights and measures inspector in the car he is going to take the first turning to the left; he is not going to drive into the kerb.

LORD DERWENT

He will then have committed an offence, as the noble Lord knows.

LORD STONHAM

That is always assuming that in those few seconds the weights and measures inspector has convinced the driver of the lorry that he is an inspector duly accredited, and not some kind of highjacker, which the coal lorry driver could quite reasonably plead in defence to have thought, and no doubt would do so. The point I am trying to get over is not whether a weights and measures inspector can and does seize this kind of opportunity to stop a coal lorry, or examine a stopped coal lorry if the noble Lord prefers it that way, but that in this Bill, which is primarily designed to ensure that weights and measures laws should be observed and therefore must be properly administered and, if you like, properly policed, the noble Lord, in a field where we know that petty thievery is constant and rife, proposes to deprive the properly accredited inspectors of the necessary powers to carry out their duties. That is not protection of the consumer; that is just stupidity.

I would ask the noble Lord to tell us who his advisers are, and how it is that their advice is so completely contrary to that of the people who, one would have thought, would have known best—namely, the present weights and measures inspectors, the local authorities who employ them, and who produced the statistics to prove what will be the result if this power does not continue. It is a power which, mainly, they possess in local by-laws. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said that in the Weights and Measures Act, 1946, there was no power to stop ballast lorries. I am not prepared to argue on that point. But I do say that there is power in local by-laws all over the country now to stop such lorries, and those powers will vanish under this Bill, just as the many powers which local authorities now possess to stop and test lorries will vanish. He spoke of having vehicles check weighed when they had virtually stopped. But there is this sign in the photograph here; that is how they do it.

I do not allege for one moment that weights and measures inspectors should be so utterly mad as to walk out into a fast-moving stream of traffic and suddenly try to stop a lorry. That would be almost akin to inviting death or serious injury. But I do say that thousands of lorries are stopped by this means, and that acceptance of my noble friend's Amendment would give the inspectors the powers that they badly need and which their local authorities want them to have, and that we should see that they get in this Bill.

6.22 p.m.

BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY

My Lords, I think that the reply of the Minister really underlined what I said at the beginning—namely, that whatever reasons were put forward for this Amendment, the reply of the Government was going to be, "No". It seems to me quite incredible that in a case like this, where you have the weights and measures authorities, the local authorities, the industry itself and the consumers all saying

EARL FERRERS moved to add to subsection (2): and any document displayed with any goods offered or exposed for sale which relates to the price or quantity of the goods and which the inspector has reason to believe may be required as evidence in proceedings under this Act".

The noble Earl said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to address my remarks to Amendments

one thing, the Board of Trade, without one tittle of evidence from any organisation or any person, completely disregard this evidence. I have given the Minister detailed information from one large city. He has not dealt with one of those matters—not one. I could only hope that reports of this debate will be in the hands of all local authorities and weights and measures inspectors, and that perhaps when we reach the next stage of the Bill the noble Lord will either have some facts to give us or at least will pay some attention to people who deal with this matter. I have no option but to press this Amendment, and I greatly hope that noble Lords on both sides of the House will support me.

6.24 p.m.

On Question, Whether the Amendment (No. 26) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 40.

CONTENTS
Alexander of Hillsborough, E.	Lawson, L.	Silkin, L.
Burton of Coventry, B.	Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Stonham, L. [Teller.]
Champion, L.	Merthyr, L.	Walston, L.
Crook, L.	Peddie, L.	Williams, L.
Henderson, L.	Sainsbury, L.	Williamson, L.
Latham, L.	Shackleton, L.	Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS
Ailsa, M.	Dundonald, E.	Lothian, M.
Ailwyn, L.	Ferrers, E.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Albemarle, E.	Ferrier, L.	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Ampthill, L.	Furness, V.	St. Just, L.
Auckland, L.	Goschen, V. [Teller.]	St. Oswald, L.
Bossom, L.	Hailes, L.	Sandys, L.
Boston, L.	Hailsham, V. (L. President.)	Sandwich, E.
Brocket, L.	Hastings, L.	Somers, L.
Chesham, L.	Hawke, L.	Soulbury, V.
Colville of Culross, V.	Howard of Glossop, L.	Strang, L.
Conesford, L.	Iddesleigh, E.	Stratheden and Campbell, L.
Craigton, L.	Ironside, L.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Cromartie, E.	Long, V.	Waleran, L.
Derwent, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Nos. 27 and 28 together. The purpose of these Amendments is to meet a point which was raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, in connection with Clause 30. The second of these two Amendments is consequential on the first.

The noble Lord moved an Amendment which would have extended the powers of inspectors in Clause 30(1) to cover not only documents required by or under the Bill, but also any price ticket or notice. The noble Lord argued—and he was supported on this point by other noble Lords—that in cases of prosecution based on misleading price notices it was necessary for the inspector to be able to produce the notice as evidence in court. We have considered this matter further, as we undertook to do in Committee, and as a result I am moving these Amendments, which I believe will meet the point to which noble Lords attached importance. They will enable an inspector to seize and detain any document, displayed with the goods, which relates to price or quantity and which may be needed as evidence in proceedings under the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 4, at end insert the said words.—(Earl Ferrers.)

LORD AIREDALE

My Lords, I took great interest in this matter when it was raised by Lord Faringdon during Committee. I had particularly in mind the widespread use of deceptive price tickets by costermongers, who have various deceptive practices. Very often they put what you think is the price per lb. of the strawberries they are selling on top of the pyramid of strawberries, and then, when you are half way through the transaction, you find that the "½" is written in minuscule letter between the price and the "lb.". This sort of deception is extensively used among costermongers. I very much welcome this Amendment because I really believe that it may serve to stamp out this stupid, tiresome and deceptive practice.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, this Amendment, as I said, is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 7, leave out ("or articles") and insert ("articles or documents").—(Earl Ferrers.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

6.34 p.m.

LORD STONHAM moved to leave out subsection (7). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend and myself, which again deals with power to stop vehicles. Subsection (7) states: Nothing in this Act shall authorise any inspector to stop any vehicle on a highway. I think that it was made perfectly clear by an interjection from my noble friend Lord Walston how uncertain the position of the inspectors will be in this matter, and how that uncertainty will be added to if subsection (7) remains in the Bill—because it specifically draws attention to the fact that an inspector has no authority under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, to stop a vehicle.

The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, was good enough to write to me after the Committee stage, as he had promised to do, and let me know what he thought about representations which we had made during Committee. He said: I have now considered this further, and I am confirmed in my view that it would be wrong to remove subsection (7) of this clause. The removal of this subsection would in itself give no powers to inspectors to stop vehicles."— I agree with that, of course.— The powers which inspectors now have to stop coal lorries under the 1889 Act would be removed by the repeal of that Act under Schedule 9. The purpose of subsection (7) is therefore purely to clarify the position for traders, as well as for the enforcement authorities, and I can see no point or purpose in its deletion. In my submission, "clarifying the position" apparently means underlining the fact that the inspectors have no powers and that the crooks are free to do as they like. I think that it is a most unfortunate decision by the Government. There is no question but that the Bill intends that vehicles should be inspected by inspectors. That is made clear beyond any doubt by the definition of "premises" as including a vehicle. Clause 58 reads: ' premises' …includes any place and any stall, vehicle, ship or aircraft".

During the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said (column 602 of Hansard for May 7) that it was arguable that "premises" can be a vehicle. It is not arguable: it is in the Bill. It is by definition a fact. Therefore, if inspectors are going to inspect vehicles, they can inspect them only when they are stationary. If they want to inspect the load in a vehicle that is moving, they must find means of stopping it. If we say in this Bill that nothing here gives them any power to stop a vehicle, then we are drawing attention to the fact that they are going out to do their duty deprived of the essential power.

I would underline that, although we are on the same general point, I am not in this Amendment seeking the powers asked for by my noble friend in the earlier Amendment. I am asking merely that powers which these people now possess should not be taken away. If subsection (7) stays in the Bill the police constables will feel, and probably with justification, that they ought not to assist inspectors to do something which, in effect, is prohibited by the Bill. But if this subsection is taken out of the Bill, the police will feel able to continue to help in stopping vehicles, as they do now. I am not asking, for any additional powers to be given to the inspector, merely that he should not be hindered in the execution of his duties.

In some measure, judging by the replies which he has given previously in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, may have misunderstood the situation. It is not true that no person other than a constable in uniform may lawfully, and quite properly, stop a vehicle on the highway. For many years highway authorities have appointed inspectors of weights and measures as authorised officers under the Road Traffic Act, particularly for the weighing of vehicles suspected of being overloaded. These officers are authorised. They are not constables, but they are authorised to stop motor vehicles on the highway by exhibiting an approved sign, such as the one in the photograph which I showed the noble Lord a little while ago. Despite the arguments which have been used by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, such inspectors of weights and measures who are authorised will continue to use these signs for stopping vehicles and weighing them, as a check against overloading. Surely this would create a ludicrous and quite untenable position, unless the Government had it in mind that nothing whatever, no human or proper interest, should stop the mad flow of road vehicles on the highway.

There is no question, my Lords, of the very great anxiety felt by all weights and measures authorities on this point. In an earlier speech the noble Lord mentioned the City of Glasgow. They are indeed one very big authority, one of the largest in the country, who are extremely anxious on this point. They tell me that officials of the Coal Merchants' Federation are highly critical of the proposal in the Bill to withdraw the powers of an inspector to stop one of their vehicles. It is not the coal merchants, the owners, who want the inspectors to be deprived of these powers. They are very concerned at the prospect that they are going to lose them. Indeed, the Coal Merchants' Federation in Glasgow have even approached the Corporation to get some form of strict licensing, to rid the trade of the type of person who is giving it such a very bad name; in other words, they are asking for increased powers, not the withdrawal of those which already exist.

My Lords, in a city like Glasgow, just as in London, an offender can so easily avoid detection or avoid proof of an offence, if he has merely to skip in his lorry from the area of one weights and measures authority to another; or, as in Glasgow, just to drive off over the city boundary. I understand that in Glasgow alone in the last year there were well over 3,500 inspections. That is a very large number in one city. Over 1,000 tons of coal were weighted in these inspections, and there were 89 prosecutions and 89 convictions. So it is not that this is a rare offence. It is not negligible. Consumers clearly need protection in this matter. The offence is increasing to such an extent that in Glasgow at times they have had to withdraw staff from one department to another, in order to deal with this problem. We were very disappointed when the Government refused my noble friend's earlier Amendment, and we urge acceptance of this one.

I invited the noble Lord, in a previous discussion, to give us the source of his evidence for the Government's attitude in this matter. He made it quite clear that he was not going to ask for the permission of the House to speak again. Now is his opportunity, because if he has had expert advice on this subject, which would convince us that, desirable as this Amendment would be, it would give rise to greater dangers in another direction, then we ought to know about it. But no mere assertions are of any use, because I am bound to say that time and time again (this has not occurred only to me, or been said only by me: it has been said by a number of noble Lords on different subjects) the statements made by the noble Lord have been divorced from reality. They have painted quite a false picture of the particular circumstances that we were dealing with at the time. That was the case in respect of my noble friend's Amendment. I therefore urge the noble Lord, if he has the real evidence that would refute these arguments, evidence that would prove to these experts in these great cities that they are wrong, to produce it. If not, I ask your Lordships to be with me in accepting this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 46, leave out subsection (7).—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD AIREDALE

My Lords, I think there is much to be said for this Amendment. If we were now debating the question of whether or not a new power to stop vehicles on the highway should be given to inspectors, and the Ministry of Transport said that in their view, because of the increasing traffic on the roads, danger on the roads and so on, such new power should not be given, I believe that noble Lords would respect that, and would not, of course, expect the Ministry of Transport to be able to produce evidence to support their view. But, my Lords, this is not that case. This is the case of taking away from inspectors a power which they have hitherto had for a very long time.

I should have thought that, if the Ministry of Transport are opposing the continuation of this power in the hands of these inspectors, it is up to the Ministry to produce concrete evidence showing instances where danger on the road has been caused by the use of this power by these inspectors. The Ministry, after all, ought to be able to produce this evidence. They do not seem to have done so. I have heard all the arguments adduced by the Minister in charge of this Bill. I have not heard evidence showing any real reason why the Ministry of Transport should be opposing this power of inspectors. The power has existed for a very long time and, unless evidence is to be forthcoming from the Ministry of Transport, I do not believe this power ought to be taken away from the inspectors.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, the last three-quarters of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the whole of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, dealt with the last Amendment and not this one, and I intend to confine my remarks to this Amendment. The subsection which the Amendment seeks to remove does not take away from the inspectors any powers: they are removed by quite a different clause. All that subsection (7) is declaring is that they have no powers, because the previous Amendment dealt with the taking away of the powers. This merely states as a fact that they now have no power under this Bill to stop vehicles. The reason it is put in is that up to the passing of this Bill they have had this power, and this is stating emphatically that they have not. But this is not the clause that takes away their power.

LORD AIREDALE

Which clause does that?

LORD DERWENT

The doing away with the Act of 1889, which comes to an end by this Bill.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

Surely, my Lords, that is really a quibble. At a later stage of the Bill one of the Schedules takes away the power; but this subsection is the one that refers to it.

LORD DERWENT

I would ask the noble Lords to read subsection (7): Nothing in this Act shall authorise any inspector to stop any vehicle on a highway. It does not say that it takes away his power. It is merely saying that it is not authorised. It is taken away by the repeal of the other Act. It is in a different part of the Bill.

LORD AIREDALE

It is a quibble.

LORD DERWENT

It is not a quibble.

LORD CROOK

It must be a quibble. We have not reached Schedule 9 yet.

LORD DERWENT

And at this rate we doubtless will not. May I put it in this way to your Lordships? The removal of this subsection, which the Amendment seeks to bring about, would in itself give no powers to inspectors to stop vehicles. Is that clear?

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Yes.

LORD DERWENT

The powers they have got will be removed by the repeal of the 1889 Act under Schedule 9; but this subsection does not remove the powers. It is Schedule 9 which does that. This merely states as a fact what will be made the fact by Schedule 9. Have I made myself clear to noble Lords now? The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, started his remarks by saying that the position of the inspectors was uncertain. The purpose of subsection (7) is to clarify the position, and to make the position certain. We maintain that the effect of deleting it would be misleading, and would only make obscure what is now made clear by the subsection.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, may I—

LORD DERWENT

If I may go on with what I am saying, the noble Lord can speak later, as he is entitled to do. It has been suggested that subsection (7) will create a handicap for inspectors. I do not agree with this view. There is nothing in the Bill which specifically authorises an inspector to stop vehicles. I hope noble Lords will not disagree with that. All subsection (7) does is to make this clear. It cannot in itself create a handicap to inspectors. On the contrary, I think that to remove the subsection might possibly cause confusion, and I think might mistakenly be interpreted as meaning that inspectors have some kind of implied right to stop vehicles even though they have been given no express powers for this purpose. In fact, the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is to the effect that if we delete subsection (7) then inspectors, without being given any power by Parliament to stop vehicles, would more easily be able to deceive lorry drivers that they had got these powers. That is what he said; and, really, if the noble Lord is asking Parliament to encourage deceit of that kind, I am surprised.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, what will an inspector be doing when he pulls up alongside a coal lorry at traffic lights and tells the driver to go over the road and pull up, and to have his lorry weighed? Is that not deceiving him?

LORD DERWENT

Not in the least, because he has not stopped the vehicle. The vehicle is already stopped. Once it is stopped, he can give instructions to the driver that he wishes to weigh his coal, and if the lorry driver does not obey then he is committing an offence. It is no good noble Lords saying that this subsection takes away any power he has. In our view, if you do not have this subsection in, it is very likely to lead to misunderstanding. As the noble Lord has said, the position of inspectors is uncertain, and it may well remain uncertain if we do not have this subsection in the Bill.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, has the noble Lord any evidence of any misunderstanding up to the present, or of any difficulty?

LORD DERWENT

There can hardly be any misunderstanding at present, because at present they are entitled to stop the lorries.

LORD LATHAM

That is so, but if this Amendment were carried they would continue to be entitled to stop the lorries.

LORD DERWENT

No; that is quite wrong. This would not give any power to the inspectors to stop lorries. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that that is correct.

LORD LATHAM

It is an implied power.

LORD DERWENT

There is no implied power in the Bill. If this subsection is taken away, as the Amendment wants, there is no implied or any other power in the Bill for inspectors to stop lorries.

LORD LATHAM

The implication is by the very absence of anything otherwise in the Bill. I am really very sorry for the noble Lord, because we all know that on this matter his speech is the voice of the Ministry of Transport, not of the Board of Trade.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, this is yet another occasion when the Minister has answered a speech I made in Committee, and not a speech I made this afternoon. It does seem to me that the only chance I shall have of getting a reply to any speech I make is to give a copy to the Minister well in advance so that they can work out the answers to the arguments. Because I did not make the same speech again; I did not use the same material; I advanced new arguments, none of which has been answered. It is within the recollection of the House that almost the first thing I did was to read out from the Bill what I wanted to take out of it; so I did not deceive anyone. I did not pretend that acceptance of the Amendment would give powers to an inspector, or that he already possesses any. I merely said that acceptance of the Amendment would not underline the fact—these are my very words—that an inspector does not have the power.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, the noble Lord, I think, misunderstood. Several of his noble friends interrupted, and they did not take the same line as the noble Lord.

LORD STONHAM

But when the noble Lord began his speech he said that 75 per cent. of what I had said referred to the previous Amendment, moved by my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry, and only 25 per cent. to the Amendment that I moved. Of course, he is entitled to his opinion on that—and I did say that, broadly speaking, they were on the same general subject. But I addressed my remarks entirely to the deletion of this subsection.

My Lords, I feel that, even if this were accepted, it does not anything like meet the need, but it has been argued and argued in another place, where the Government were adamant, and it has been argued here, and we felt that this was the least we could do. We cannot send these trained and responsible people out to do their job, not merely completely defenceless, with no

authority at all, but with their lack of authority absolutely underlined, so that even a police constable might say, "No, I cannot help you; I am not allowed to do so". What a ridiculous situation. The noble Lord laughs. We are dealing with men who know so much about this that they have stuck up in the cabs of their lorries the registration numbers of inspectors' cars. There was a case, even, where a man had the number in reverse so that it was as it appeared in the mirror of his van. Is the noble Lord really going to tell me that those kind of people will not know that the inspector has no power, that he has been sent out without any authority for his job?

We have been with this Bill—at least, I have—for more than two years, and it has been very much altered and very much improved from its original condition. Basically we have always held the view that it was for the protection of the consumer, but I am bound to say that from our discussions to-day, and from some other discussions on this Bill, the consumer is going to have less protection—considerably less protection—than he or she has now. Therefore, we must press this matter. I know that noble Lords are anxious for us to finish, but we must press this matter to a Division.

7.0 p.m.

On Question, Whether the Amendment (No. 29) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 31.

CONTENTS
Airedale, L.	Latham, L.	Silkin, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, E.	Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Stonham, L. [Teller.]
Burton of Coventry, B.	Merthyr, L.	Walston, L.
Champion, L.	Peddie, L.	Williamson, L.
Crook, L.	Sainsbury, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Ailsa, M.	Dulverton, L.	Ironside, L.
Ailwyn, L.	Dundonald, E.	Long, V.
Albemarle, E.	Ferrers, E.	Lothian, M.
Ampthill, L.	Ferrier, L.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Bossom, L.	Furness, V.	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Boston, L.	Goschen, V. [Teller.]	St. Just, L.
Brocket, L.	Hastings, L.	Sandys, L.
Chesham, L.	Hawke, L.	Strang, L.
Conesford, L.	Howard of Glossop, L.	Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Cromartie, E.	Iddesleigh, E.	Waleran, L.
Derwent, L.
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 51 [Prosecution of offences]:

LORD CROOK moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or the chief officer of police for a police area". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move, on behalf of my noble friend, to leave out on page 50, line 40, the words "or the chief officer of police for a police area". I read the words of the Amendment because I want to make it clear that the Amendment as now moved is not in the form in which it was moved originally in the Committee stage. It has, in fact, been amended to meet the point of view which the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, then expressed: that is to say, the lack of desire for powers of prosecution expressed by the Board of Trade. In the main, the arguments for the Amendment in its present form remain largely as they were when they were so admirably advanced by my noble friends Lord Latham and Lord Stonham in the Committee stage on the 7th May, but I will try not to repeat the words or the main arguments they then used.

The most weighty argument I would advance—and it is tile kind we have been advancing in this House largely during this Report stage—is that the County Councils Association, all the associations of inspectors, including the Institute of Weights and Measures Administration, feel strongly that the power to prosecute should be confined to the weights and measures authority and persons acting on their behalf. They were, of course, very happy originally to extend the power to the Board of Trade in the kind of Amendment they suggested to us; but, since in his reply on behalf of the Government the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, indicated that the Board had no desire to have that power, the Amendment is now put forward to restrict power to prosecute to local weights and measures authorities.

We accept and strongly support the view of those who have made representations to us. We think that on this, as on other matters we have represented here this afternoon, they know the most about these things. They are the authorities with experience; they are the authorities who will in due course have to administer this Bill when it becomes an Act. We think the technicalities and complications of the Bill are such that they require qualified administrators and that the power to prosecute under the provisions of the Act should therefore be strictly restricted to the knowledgeable authorities and their experts to whom I have referred.

Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, who is to reply for the Government, that in our view it is no argument against the proposition to say that sometimes in the course of their duties the police and the inspectors of weights and measures discover very serious offences entirely outside the purposes of weights and measures law which is, as we know, mainly control of the details of trade activities for the public at large. These serious offences that are discovered, and have not normally anything to do with weights and measures, are passed on to the police. So we are informed by those who deal with these matters. On the other hand, where a policeman stumbles on circumstances that might constitute an offence against the weights and measures law, it is equally proper and in the best interests of the public that he should pass the matter to the weights and measures authority, rather than try to deal with it himself. I am told that in practice that is what normally happens. The suggestion that there is any advantage in enabling police officers dealing with serious crimes to prosecute for comparatively minor weights and measures misdemeanours is, as I see it, far removed from the realities of practice.

May I remind your Lordships of the figures, which the noble Lord himself gave in the course of the Committee stage, when he referred to the replies which had been given to a questionnaire sent to county councils and county boroughs? The figures that he had collated by that method proved beyond doubt that there were no police prosecutions for weights and measures offences in the area of the principal weights and measures authorities in England and Wales during the past five years. The noble Lord went on to say, however, that though there were no prosecutions in the areas of county councils and county boroughs, there were some in other weights and measures areas, but he was afraid that he did not have their number at his disposal at that moment. We hope very much that he has that number this afternoon, to make up for the figure he could not give us in May. Let me say clearly that, despite all our researches, we have been unable to find any at all in the period in between.

I have not the slightest doubt, of course, that there were some cases ten or twenty years ago, but we cannot trace any in the past five years, the period to which the noble Lord referred. If we start talking about twenty years instead of five, where are we getting? If we go back far enough, to the date of the Statutes which we are so busily repealing, we shall find that the majority of prosecutions were instituted by the police, but we should have to remind ourselves that the reason for that was that a large number of police officers in those days were weights and measures officers as well. But we are not dealing with 1878 or even with 1898. We are dealing with 1963 and with the views of well-informed people of long experience who have to look forward to the years when this Bill has become law. We believe that the views they have offered us are good and that, in consequence, this Amendment is good. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 50, line 40, leave out the said words.—(Lord Crook.)

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, the noble Lord has taken a slightly different line on a slightly different Amendment, and my reply will be slightly different. As I said in Committee, when Amendments which would have had a similar effect to this one were moved, the police already have the power to institute proceedings under existing law and there is no evidence that the powers of the police to prosecute weights and measures offences have ever caused any difficulties. Indeed, on a number of occasions they have proved useful.

If the noble Lord's Amendment is put forward in the interests of efficiency, I do not think that he has made out his case. This Bill creates a number of new offences, some of which, particularly in Part III, dealing with public weighing and measuring equipment, could appropriately on occasion be dealt with by the police. I do not think that this power ought to be taken away from them. It has always worked satisfactorily, the weights and measures authorities have never had any objection, and we feel that it ought to be left. The noble Lord has not put forward the argument made by a previous speaker about zealous young constables barging into stores.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, who made that case?

LORD DERWENT

It was implied that young constables might go into shops. I do not remember who put this forward, but I will check it.

LORD CROOK

My Lords, I am bound to say that I very much regret that the noble Lord not only does not come my way at all, but shows this tendency for the argument which comes from the Government Benches to depend entirely upon the Ministry which is advancing it. We are anxious to increase the efficiency of the police. The noble Lord is right in saying that a number of new offences are going to be created by the Bill but, by the way in which our Amendments have been completely stymied by the Government, we are going to have a large amount of chopping up of authorities and of difficulties artificially created for us. We are going on to the London Government Bill next week and then we shall have even more of them.

Apparently the noble Lord is quite happy to sit there representing the Board of Trade and see the police take on this extra work. We are trying to see that the police have less work. I do not know whether the noble Lord knows that in the area of the London Government Bill the police, who up to now have been training young children in safety on bicycles, are being withdrawn from this job. Everybody knows the efficiency with which the police have done this job and that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents rely upon them. They are being withdrawn for one reason and one reason only: because the police have too many duties to do at the moment. When we have a Bill with a Board of Trade background, we have the Board of Trade argument—never mind about transport or anything else. When we are discussing the police or accidents on the road, we get another kind of argument. We never seem to be able to make them fit together.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, may I just refer to the noble Lord's question, to which I think he is entitled to an answer? It was not the noble Lord who said it, but the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble Lord will find it in the second paragraph of column 610 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for May 7. Lord Stonham referred to the "over-zealous young constable" et cetera.

LORD LATHAM

My noble friend is more adventurous than I.

LORD DERWENT

I am sorry that I ascribed it to the noble Lord.

LORD CROOK

In all the circumstances, in view of the adamance of the noble Lord, and the lack of desire to keep on dividing at this hour of the evening, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 61 [Transitional provisions for milk and bread]:

LORD DERWENT moved in subsection (3) after "apply" to insert "(a)". The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' premission, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 together. These are the first two, and I hope satisfactory, Amendments dealing with milk. The purpose of these Amendments is to exempt school milk from the general requirement in Clause 61(3) that third pints shall be marked with their quantity. This requirement applies six months after the Bill is passed and until Schedule 4 comes into force. When the Schedule comes into force two years after the Bill is passed, all pre-packed milk will have to be marked with its quantity. Under present law, third pints are allowed for sale only to schools, and there is no requirement to mark the quantity. Your Lordships will recall that the provision in Clause 61(3) which allows milk to be sold generally in third pints, provided it is marked with the quantity, was inserted in the Bill in Committee following an undertaking given in another place to allow third pints for general sale at an earlier date than was provided for in the Schedule.

In view of the Government Amendments permitting vending machines to sell in any quantity for 6d. up to the time when the Schedule comes into force (we have not yet come to those, but we shall), representatives of the dairies have pointed out that it is unlikely that third pints will come into general use during this period, and that the main effect of Clause 61(3) will be that school milk will have to be marked eighteen months earlier than it would have to be under the Schedule. This will involve expense and considerable inconvenience to the trade, and, in the circumstances, we do not think it necessary to require marking of school milk in advance of the general marking requirements for all milk when the Schedule comes into force. Thus the Amendments will temporarily exempt school milk sold in third pints—but not ordinary retail sales in third pints—from the requirement that the containers must be marked with their quantity. I hope the noble Lord opposite will think this is a reasonable provision. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 57, line 26, after ("apply") insert ("(a) ").—(Lord Derwent.)

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, we do indeed regard this as a reasonable provision. It is clear to us that it is necessary, and we are grateful to the Government for having met this point. There is just one small point—and I am sorry I did not give notice of it to the noble Lord. I wonder whether he can tell me why the words "as a beverage" are included. It says: …for consumption as a beverage by the pupils of that school". It seems to me that if they had some milk over and could not get a lot of Tommy Browns and Johnny Smiths to rally around and drink it up, it might have to be tipped down the drain and would be wasted. Why could they not make it up into a milk pudding, or something like that, the next day? Would they be committing an offence? I am not trying to be clever or funny about this, but I am not clear why it could be consumed only as a beverage, as we are dealing with schools, and it might lead to unnecessary waste. I am sure there is a simple explanation, but perhaps the noble Lord could give it.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, I speak again with the permission of the House. This is the phrase used in the Emergency Powers (Milk) (Great Britain) Order, 1962, to which this specifically refers. That is the Order in force now and refers to milk "as a beverage".

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, with the permission of the sole supporter on my side, who prevents me from feeling rather like the boy left on the burning deck now that we have come to milk, that still does not explain the point. I appreciate that it is in the regulations now, but I still do not understand why it is in the regulations. That is probably a good reason for putting it in here, but could the noble Lord deal with the point of whether the milk would have to be thrown away if it was not consumed because it could not be consumed as a beverage?

LORD DERWENT

The technical point in regard to school milk is that if it is provided for milk puddings it is not allowed under the Order at present to be provided in third-of-a-pint bottles.

LORD STONHAM

Obviously they will have to throw it away if it is in third-of-a-pint bottles.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 57, line 29, at end insert ("or (b) as respects any sale of any milk made up in a container in that quantity, being a sale to, or for the purpose of resale to, any person having the management of any school, or any person acting under his authority, for consumption as a beverage by the pupils of that school.")—(Lord Derwent.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

7.25 p.m.

LORD DERWENT moved, after subsection (3) to insert: (3A) The said section 7(1) shall not apply to a sale of pre-packed milk at a price of sixpence by means of a vending machine if—

1. (a) the milk is pre-packed in a container marked with an indication of quantity by capacity measurement and a statement that it is not for sale otherwise than by that means; and
2. (b) there is displayed to any prospective buyer, on or in the machine, an indication of the quantity by capacity measurement of the milk in each container offered or exposed for sale in the machine;

and it shall not be a contravention of the said section 7(1) for any person to sell otherwise than by retail, or to have in his possession—

1. (i) for sale by means of such a vending machine or otherwise than by retail, or
2. (ii) for delivery on sale otherwise than by retail,

any milk pre-packed as aforesaid notwithstanding that it is pre-packed in a quantity not otherwise permitted by the said section 7(1)."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of noble Lords opposite, I will discuss Amendments 34, 37 and 38 together—that is, the Amendment to Clause 61 and the two Amendments to Clause 66—as they are connected. Their effect is to permit, for a period of two years from the passing of the Bill, sales of pre-packed milk through vending machines at a price of 6d. in any quantity, provided that the quantity sold is shown on both the containers and the machines. These Amendments will relax the requirements of existing law—the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926—and they will lapse, with the repeal of that Act, two years after the passing of the Bill by virtue of Clause 63 and Schedule 9. Thus, they will allow vending machines, during the two years from the passing of the Bill, to continue to sell pre-packed milk at their present price of 6d., but in a quantity of less than the half-pint in which they are now required to sell.

In moving these Amendments, I must make it plain that the Government remain firmly convinced, for the reasons which have been given on previous occasions, both here and in another place, that, as a permanent arrangement, sales from milk-vending machines should be subject to the same weights and measures requirements, as apply to other retail sales. This is a matter which we shall no doubt be debating when we reach the Amendment which noble Lords have tabled to Schedule 4. We have put down the Amendments to Clause 61 and Clause 66 in order to meet the current difficulties of the vending-machine operators, and purely as a means of giving the operators of the existing machines a temporary breathing space to prepare for whatever adjustments might be necessary to enable them to comply with the requirements of the Schedule. We do not believe that to perpetuate this arrangement, which applies different requirements to sales from vending machines and to other retail sales, would be either desirable in principle or satisfactory in practice. To mention only one practical point at this stage, any cartons which are not sold within a reasonable period from a vending machine at the moment are taken out and put on the front of the counter and sold as first milk in the morning. This is a common practice, but if it is made a permanency any cartons not sold in a reasonable period from a vending machine could not be taken out of that machine and sold over the counter. This may well cause difficulties for the trade, and might even cause a public scandal. I mention that in advance to show that this is only a temporary matter, but I suggest that we deal with the long-term position in detail when we reach Schedule 4. For the period until the Schedule comes into force, these Amendments will, I think, meet the purpose of the three Amendments which noble Lords opposite have tabled to Clause 61. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 57, line 29, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Derwent.)

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, as the noble Lord has rightly said, for a period of two years at least the Amendment he has now moved meets the points that we raised in Committee and it meets the Amendment I moved, No. 33, and the two later Amendments, Nos. 35 and 36, which I shall not now need to move. I am extremely grateful, and on behalf of the farmers and dairymen, and everyone connected with the sale of milk and, indeed, the people in factories, on railway stations, and housewives, who find this a great convenience, I would thank the noble Lord and the Government. I must also add my thanks to the noble Lord for having now so frankly stated the Government's position on this matter and for suggesting that we have the main discussion on Schedule 4 and on the Amendment which I hope to move.

I will add my thanks to him also for making in advance what I regard as one or two quite valuable comments which can be studied. I do not think that the position regarding unsold milk from vending machines is a major point. It had to be dealt with, of course, but each machine holds only about 100 cartons and there are not usually circumstances where it is unsold for a long period; and they are, of course, refrigerated machines. I hope I have thanked the noble Lord adequately. He has made some remarks in advance of the debate which we shall have later on when we resume, but I hope he will not mind if I just mention one or two things to him on which he will perhaps cogitate before we resume the Report stage of the Bill at our next session, which I believe will be in about ten days' time.

When the noble Lord considered this matter in Committee he said that the Government felt it was wrong in principle and unenforceable in practice to differentiate between vending machines and other forms of retail sale. Apparently, if he has not decided that this is right in principle, he has at least decided that it is right in practice, but only for two years, and then presumably it will go all wrong and impracticable all over again. Then he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 249 (No. 79), col. 618]: I have no wish to enter into the question of price, because this Bill does not deal with price… He continued, referring to myself: …it is no good the noble Lord pretending that unless the price is 6d. these containers could not be sold in vending machines, because that is not so…I find the noble Lord's argument quite staggering… Indeed, it is so staggering, apparently, that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has happily staggered into an Amendment which insists that the price shall be 6d. I do not know who converted him. I know that there have been two letters and articles in The Times but it could not possibly have been The Times which converted him, because we have been assured on the best authority that The Times is an anti-Conservative paper. It must, therefore, have been myself.

The noble Lord went on to say (col. 627): If an exemption were allowed for milk sold from vending machines it would be…almost impossible to see how exemptions for vending machine sales of other goods could be resisted. It is not resisted. When the price of chocolate goes up, the size of the chocolate in the packet goes down. In summer the same refrigerated vending machines, I assure noble Lords from my own knowledge, are used to sell orange drinks or chocolate milk drinks, on which there is no price or quantity control whatever and which lead to no difficulty at all in competition with milk. Finally the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, insisted—and presumably he still insists (col. 628): Commodities such as milk must be sold only in certain quantities, and in no others…we believe that is most important. Throughout my time in Parliament, some 20 years, I have also thought that the agricultural community—the farming industry and the dairy industry—was most important, that the interests of the consumer were most important and that the Government and Parliament should not interfere unnecessarily, arbitrarily and without due cause in the development of industry; and I do ask the noble Lord to have a look at what he said in Committee and at the points I have now quoted on which the noble Lord has apparently had second thoughts. I hope that he will come prepared, as I am sure he will, when we discuss this matter again, to listen to the arguments, not only with an open mind but with the power, as I hope, to decide in accordance with the arguments (because they are very heavy indeed) in favour of making the arrangement which is now to continue for two years a permanent one.

Lastly, I hope that he will consider this further point. The Government have apparently decided, for the reasons he stated, to allow this to go on only for two years. I cannot now discuss my later Amendments, but if the method I suggest there were adopted by the Government it would always be open to the Board of Trade, if they found that the interests of the consumers, or any other interests, were being impaired, to change the arrangement. Therefore, I hope that in the interim period we are now fortunately having for consideration, the Government will consider that way of safeguarding the proper interests, rather than the other way round, of bringing this scheme to an end in two years' time, risking the disruption of industry, with grave damage to the farming community, and then finding the remedy after the damage is done. I hope that the noble Lord will think all these things over in the next ten days and that we shall have a thorough debate on them, with many other noble Lords having an opportunity of expressing their points of view. In the meantime I would thank him for the present Amendment.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said early in his remarks that he would be moving another Amendment at the Report stage. Did he, in fact, mean at the Third Reading?

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I may be anticipating matters, but I think that it is unlikely that we shall get as far as the end of the Report stage to-night, which means that we shall have to return to it.

7.38 p.m.

LORD PEDDIE

My Lords, my noble friend has indicated very clearly the point of view of this side of the House on this new subsection. To some extent we welcome it, and the fact that this is an acceptance of the principle, but, unfortunately, it is only for a limited period of time. My noble friend has indicated the tremendous importance of the vending machine for the sale of milk, and also the very great service it gives to the consumer. We are all very concerned with protection of the consumer and, primarily, this Bill has that objective; but one would have thought that a clear statement of quantity and price would in itself have offered the protection which the consumer requires. It appears to me that this Amendment is rather an attempt to extricate the Government from the tangle in which they find themselves over these vending machines, and I am sorry, quite frankly, that it is merely a stop-gap, because the new subsection merely amends the Sales of Food Act which will be repealed in a matter of two years.

I wonder where the difficulty lies in all this and why the Government appear to be making such a fuss of an apparently simple matter. I am told that there are about 6,000 vending machines in this country, each costing about an average of £365. Probably £2¼ million is involved. Does the Minister honestly believe that at the end of two years it will be possible to replace those machines or even effect the necessary very considerable changes that would be involved? Therefore I feel quite frankly that the attitude of the Government is of such a character as to restrict the considerable services offered in vending machines. Frankly, I am at a loss to understand why in the first place there is the acceptance of the principle and then it is limited to a period of two years. When one thinks, for instance, that in the Palace of Westminster itself there are quite a number of machines dispensing various drinks of all kinds—non-alcoholic, I must make clear—but in none of which are the drinks in any stipulated quantities, one realises that if the new subsection goes through in its present form all those machines will be useless. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why there is this limitation for the period of two years.

LORD CROOK

I want to intervene for only one minute, because I want to join in the appeal to the Government to take a lot of thought about this problem. My noble friend made reference to machines in this House. He is in fact referring to a type of machine which, whether it refrigerates or heats, has the same kind of refrigeration mechanism—that is to say, heat movement—within it. They have become a very important part in what I have represented for forty years, industrial relations in this country. There has been a growing desire on the part of the Government and everybody else to try to see that welfare and amenity arrangments inside industry are improved and new things are added if possible. It is surprising how many milk machines have been installed in great factories and industrial establishments. Even if I confined myself to milk and said nothing about tea and coffee, and soup and lemonade, the problem would be big. The noble Lord might well protest—I do not think he will, because he will know how right I am—that we are talking about milk and ask why I talk about other things. It is because there is this same heat extraction or heat addition. Very important work by some of our large engineering firms is involved in the provision of this amenity.

I welcome the fact that this Report stage will not come to an end to-night, so far as we understand, and there may be a chance even now for further thought on this matter. Do not let us kill all this, because I am convinced that that is what is going to happen. First of all, it is not merely the case that people have spent large quantities of money on buying these machines to install for their people—and in my representative capacity as chairman of a national Board I may say that we have purchased and put in these very expensive dispensers—but it will cost a small fortune to alter them. If they are altered it is probably going to make them more difficult to work. I am sure the Board of Trade must have had this point put to them by everybody connected with the milk industry and with the selling of drinks in general. What is going to happen to this new and beginning-to-flourish industry? Obviously nobody is going to start putting in new machines for at least the two years. The welfare amenity arrangements which we all want to encourage, and the Government want to encourage, presenting charters and the like, are going to be held up. In addition, the firms are going to stop production and might go out of production and not bother any more. Part of what I have said is a little wide of the Amendment, but I said it quite deliberately. I am not trying to make a Party argument here. I think there is a real point at issue. My own colleagues did not know I was going to intervene. I hope the Government will have another look at this.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, during the recent cold weather I was responsible, as a result of the reconstruction of Euston Station, in urging on the railway authorities the installation of vending machines, not only for liquids, on which noble Lords opposite seem to concentrate, but also for solids—pies and the like. For anybody who goes into a railway station at night, it does not matter what the size of the pie is so long as he can get something for sixpence. These intricate and beautiful machines—there is no question about it, their design is wonderful—are today, and are going to be, whether for liquids or solids, a very important factor in the ordinary refreshment of people. If the Government can do anything to assure the designers of these machines and the people who put up capital, including British Railways, for installations of this sort, that these machines will operate for years to come, it will be a good thing, and in many respects I fully support what has been said by noble Lords opposite.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, may I just say "Thank you" to noble Lords for the limited welcome they have given to this proposal because it is for a limited period. The noble Lords, Lord Peddie and Lord Crook, will not expect me to debate Schedule 4 at this moment. May I state what the Government feeling is at the moment and I think is likely to remain?—but I will consider everything that has been said. We are not convinced that it is wise, in the interests of consumer protection, to allow milk in any form, as a long-term arrangement, to be sold in anything except fixed quantities. We are not alone in feeling that; it happens all over the United States, as your Lordships know. As regards this particular Amendment, we felt it would be grossly unfair to ask the people operating these machines to alter them in a hurry; so, at any rate, we are prepared to go as far as that. But, as a matter of principle, but not practice, we are, in the interests of consumer protection, not at the moment in agreement that, in the long-term, milk should be sold in anything except fixed amounts. I am grateful to noble Lords for having given an indication of the arguments I shall have to meet.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 66 [Short title and commencement]:

LORD DERWENT

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 59, line 40, after ("IV") insert ("section 61(3A) ").—(Lord Derwent.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DERWENT

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 59, line 43, after ("Act") insert ("section 61(3A) shall come into force on the said date").—(Lord Derwent.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4 [Foods]:

LORD STONHAM moved, in paragraph 2(2), to leave out sub-paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: This is the first Amendment in the Schedules. It proposes to delete sub-paragraph 2(2)(b) of Part II of the Fourth Schedule. This refers to container allowances under Table B. That is the second category of allowances—not large ones, quite small ones, but certainly allowances much greater than the slip of grease-proof paper. This applies to goods which are not pre-packed. We are talking about fish, poultry and sausage meat which is not pre-packed—and it seems to me that to leave this sub-paragraph in the Bill means that people will be allowed to sell these commodities by gross weight and have a container allowance which is quite unjustifiable.

I should not mind a bit if this were Table A and they were small allowances, which would be reasonable and could be regarded as necessary for hygiene; but I think this is a considerable infringement of the principle of net weight which it is not possible to justify. Because these are not pre-packed goods; they will mostly be sold over the counter. It seems to me not right that containers of this weight—not excessive, but still far too much—should be allowed. I am quite sure that we can get this Amendment completed within ten minutes. There is no need to enlarge on it. The principle is there. I should not mind Table A, but I object to Table B. For that reason, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 69, line 27, leave out sub-paragraph (b).—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, I hope to persuade the noble Lord that it is not really so unreasonable to do what we want to do. I cannot accept that it would be right to delete the provision allowing, in certain conditions, wholesale sales of poultry and sausage meat by gross weight. As I said in Committee, poultry and sausage meat are among the various products in this Schedule which are liable to lose weight to an unpredictable extent from evaporation or other causes, and for which it is extremely difficult for a factory packer to mark a weight which will be accurate at the time of sale. If the article is only lightly packed—it may not be a container—by a band or wrapper round the sausages, and it is almost entirely exposed to the air, such a marking is quite impossible at the packing place. Moreover, the net weight of such a pack can be ascertained at the time of sale only by removing the wrapper. The Bill recognises this difficulty and does not require the pack to be marked with, or sold by, net weight, provided that the weight of the container or wrapper does not exceed the quite small allowance permitted by Table B of Part XII of this Schedule. They are small allowances, and I hope, therefore, in view of that explanation of the extreme difficulty of doing what the noble Lord wants, he will agree to withdraw this Amendment.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I must confess that it is a somewhat novel idea that this provision is in the Bill for the reason that goods which are not pre-packed are, in fact, pre-packed. That is really what the noble Lord has said; and apparently he assents to that. That is really quite novel—it is the best we have had to-day. But I think he was hard put to it to find something. Eventually, he just got down to an unwrapped bundle of sausages with a girdle round the middle, and he said that the wrapper could weigh as much as 4½ drams. I quite agree—it probably could, although that is not much. I confess that I am somewhat impressed by what he said about evaporation, although I should have thought the tolerance given in the Bill would have avoided any possibility of a prosecution. I do not altogether like it. I am rather surprised that we have not pushed this one before. I hope that, without giving any kind of undertaking at all, the noble Lord will have a look at this. Perhaps he would like to write to me about it—

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, perhaps I may help the noble Lord, if the House will allow me. I have had a note from the technical side about these wrapped sausages. Sausages wrapped with their wrapper are, in fact, pre-packed. That is at page 52, line 32. There is no doubt about their being pre-packed.

LORD STONHAM

My noble friend Lord Lucan has reminded me of the fact that every sausage is pre-packed.

LORD DERWENT

Every pre-war sausage.

LORD STONHAM

That is what I thought—that a pound of sausages with a wrapper round them are, of course, pre-packed. But I understand the noble Lord to say that Table B is justified because some sausages are not wrapped with a wrapper all round them but just have a band or girdle round the middle holding them together. I thought that even that amounted to pre-packing. I have two thoughts on this. One is, that perhaps it is really not worth talking about, and the other is that there may be some slight justification in regard to this question of evaporation. Not now, but perhaps later, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would consult his technical department and would write to me in regard to whether they can think of any other example of this very peculiar category which apparently justifies a sub-paragraph in the Bill. With that, I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, I beg to move that the Report stage be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.