Lords Sitting of 7 May 1963

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

COURT-MARTIAL OF MAJOR P. R. CORY
2.35 p.m.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the judgment of the Courts-Martial Appeal Court allowing the appeal of former Major Peter Ralph Cory against his conviction by court-martial in November 1961 of five offences of fraudulent misapplication of funds: whether, having regard to the Court's description of the trial as "astonishing", and its severe criticism of the conduct of the military authorities before, during, and since the trial, and the long delay between trial and appeal, Her Majesty's Government will ensure that a Court of Inquiry is convened by the Army Council to investigate and report on all these matters: meanwhile, will Her Majesty's Government take immediate steps to reinstate Major Cory in his rank and seniority in his Corps, and grant him adequate financial compensation for the months which he has served in Wormwood Scrubs owing to this serious miscarriage of justice?]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble Lord's Question is, Yes. With regard to the second part, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War and I have already instituted a searching investigation into every respect of the case, and the investigation has already started. With regard to the third part of the Question, Major Cory has been reinstated in his rank and seniority in the Corps. He has received his full pay and allowances, and the War
546
Office and Major Cory's solicitors are in correspondence with regard to compensation.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for his reply to my Question. I would also ask him if he can tell us whether the Court of Inquiry will investigate, among other matters, why Major Cory's request for certain papers to be given to him which were essential for his defence at the trial was not granted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I did not say that a Court of Inquiry was being appointed: I said my right honourable friend and I were causing an investigation to be made. Certainly the matter relating to the papers will be a matter which will be the subject of investigation.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: May I also ask whether the following matter will be included in the investigation? Having regard to the fact that the Courts-Martial Appeal Court described the trial as "astonishing", will some inquiry be made as to why the Judge Advocate General had previously advised the Army Council that Major Cory's petition against his conviction should be dismissed?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that is one of the matters which will be investigated, along with many other matters.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord consider publishing the results of his inquiry in view of the really grave public concern in this case and the anxiety caused to us all regarding the way in which these courts-martial are conducted? Would he perhaps agree that it would be in the public interest for his findings to be published?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was certainly intending, as indeed was my right honourable friend, to report when the investigation was complete. The precise form which that report would follow, I would rather leave over for the time being. I would say that the investigation is likely to take a considerable time. There are a large number of documents which have to be looked at, including a very long shorthand note, and

547
indeed some of the investigations have to take place in East Africa. But the matter is being pressed on with as speedily as possible, and, in due course, I will report and my right honourable friend will report; but I would rather leave over the precise form of that report for the time being.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord appreciate how the facts revealed in this Question have appealed to the sense of justice of the whole House, and how relieved people have been that, on the facts as apparently so far proved, something is being done in the interests of justice? Finlly, as we are defenders of the rights of the individual, I hope the suggestion that these papers be published will be met.

AGRICULTURAL IMPORTS FROM EUROPE
2.39 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether negotiations are taking place with Denmark and other European countries regarding alterations in terms of the importation of agricultural products into this country, and if so, can definite assurances be given to British and Commonwealth farmers that no agreements for increased imports or otherwise will be entered into which could be detrimental to their interests as agricultural producers.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, as my right honourable friend said on February 27, EFTA Ministers, at their Geneva meeting on February 18 and 19, instructed the Permanent Representatives to prepare a detailed programme for the speedier elimination of the remaining tariffs on industrial goods. Trade in agricultural goods was also to be discussed. The bilateral talks with the Danes and others have been held in this context, as a preliminary to decisions by Ministers in Lisbon. In the discussions at Lisbon,
548
United Kingdom Ministers will have very much in mind the need to maintain a proper balance between home-grown and imported food supplies, including those from the Commonwealth, with fair opportunities for our own farmers and consideration for the interests of consumers.
LORD WISE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him whether, before any decision is arrived at, full consultation will take place with the Commonwealth producers, as well as our home producers? Because we are very scared that some arrangements will be made which may be detrimental to the interests of home farmers and those in the Commonwealth, to the advantage of the European countries.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, until we know what course the negotiations in Lisbon are going to take, I do not think I can give the noble Lord that assurance.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I press this matter? This, surely, is of vast importance to all the farmers in this country, as well as to the consumers. If I am right in gathering from that answer that the Government feel they are entitled to go into the EFTA Conference and enter into commitments in advance of further consultations with the Commonwealth and with home producers, I think it would be disastrous.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I do not know whether the noble Earl and his noble friend are referring to ratification or to a point of agreement which might be reached in Lisbon. Ratification is a very different thing, naturally, from a point of agreement among the EFTA countries.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: But, surely, that is rather burking the issue. It is no good making agreements with each of these countries and then proceeding to ratification afterwards. Surely, before agreements are finalised between the countries concerned in Europe and the Government, the question whether there is an agreement or not ought first to be discussed with Commonwealth producers and with the home producers as well. I am very dissatisfied with the answer which the noble Lord has given.
LORD ST. OSWALD: In my original Answer I have already given an assurance that the interests of the Commonwealth nations would be taken into account; and, naturally, this Government always have the interests of Commonwealth trade very much at heart as well as in mind.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: May I ask, then, whether the Government will give a pledge now that there will be no increase in quotas or the grant of more preferential terms to EFTA countries before they have taken into consideration the position of the Commonwealth and the home producers, and especially that there will be no restriction on output in this country where the farmers have made such an enormous contribution to our balance of payments?
LORD ST. OSWALD: I have already said that all those interests would be taken into account in the negotiations.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, will the Treasury, acting on behalf of the taxpayers, also be consulted before the Lisbon meeting? Every time tariff reductions take place in these negotiations with EFTA or any other group of countries, the price of food falls and the amount of deficiency payments grant greatly increases.
LORD ST. OSWALD: These negotiations have just begun. Noble Lords with experience of this type of negotiations will realise that it is unwise and quite aside from all practice to discuss negotiations before they are concluded. I think I must stop on that point.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the timetable in this is, in fact, entirely the wrong way round and that it would have been easier for his own Department and better for the country if the negotiations had first gone very much farther with our own farming interests; secondly, been held with Commonwealth interests, and, finally, with EFTA, rather than the other way round?
LORD ST. OSWALD: That is a matter of opinion, my Lords, but we have already said that all interests will be borne in mind during the course of these negotiations and subsequent negotiations with other interested parties.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, with regard to the question which was put by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, may I ask this? Is it not a fact that the high cost to the taxpayer at the present time is due to two things? First, there are no adequate controls in operation with regard to these prices because the Government took them off twelve years ago. Second, no proper steps have been taken to restrict imports from these countries and, therefore, the reduction in price that comes from allowing them to flow in without restriction at all is not reaching the consumers.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, in the first place that is a matter for debate; secondly, it is a question which may come up as part of the negotiations, and therefore I cannot feel free to discuss it at this moment. I must therefore ask the House to permit me to quote the lines from John Donne which say:
"And whilst our souls negotiate there,
We like sepulchral statues lay,
All day, the same our postures were,
And we said nothing all the day."
I feel that that, in all probability, is the proper posture for a Parliamentary Secretary at this particular moment.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, it brings no comfort to the British farmer or consumer.
THE EARL OF SANDWICH: My Lords, does not the noble Lord recall that the same John Donne said:
"…never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee."?

UNITED NATIONS AND THE PAPUANS
2.45 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what provision the Secretary-General of the United Nations has made for the designation of United Nations experts to advise and assist in preparing the arrangements for the self-determination of the Papuan inhabitants of West New Guinea in 1969,

551
as required by Article XVI of the agreement between Indonesia and the Netherlands.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, when speaking, on behalf of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, at the ceremony transferring full administrative responsibility to the Government of Indonesia on May 1, Mr. Narasimhan, U Thant's Special Envoy for political affairs, said:
"In consultation with the Government of Indonesia, I have decided in principle to designate a few United Nations experts, serving at headquarters and elsewhere, to perform the functions envisaged in Article XVI of the Agreement. These experts will visit West New Guinea as often as may be necessary and spend such time as may be required to enable them to report fully to me".
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, I would ask him three questions. First, as I understand it from Article XVI of the Agreement these experts were to remain in New Guinea during the period before self-determination. Second, I believe there has been no transfer of sovereignty to Indonesia. There has been only a transfer of administration. Can my noble friend tell me where the sovereignty now resides? Third, is it not rather a bad thing that the first action of the Indonesian Government should be to disband the first freely-elected representative Council ever to exist in New Guinea, which Council has in fact, under Articles XIV and XVIII, to be consulted from time to time after the transfer of administration to Indonesia?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the first question asked about Article XVI, which says that the duties of these United Nations experts, prior to the arrival of the United Nations' representative who will participate in the arrangements for self-determination, will be limited to advice or assistance in preparations to carry out the provisions for self-determination, except in so far as Indonesia and the Secretary-General may agree on their performing other expert functions. They will be responsible to the Secretary-General for the carrying out of their duties. I do not know whether there was any stipulation that they should always be there. In reply to the second
552
question, I think that technically the sovereignty resides with the United Nations until after the plebiscite has been held. I am sorry, but I did not quite catch the gist of the third question.
LORD COLYTON: The third question was whether it was not a bad sign that the first act of the Indonesian authorities was to disband the freely elected representative Council which under the agreement has a part to play in these matters of self-determination.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, it does not sound at all a good sign, I quite agree.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, now that these poor people have been handed over to the inefficient and corrupt Indonesian Government—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD OGMORE: That is true. Is it not a fact that it would be quite intolerable if the United Nations abrogated their responsibility and merely sent experts in occasionally? Should they not be there all the time to see that some slight measure of justice may be accorded to these poor people?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think that that is a matter of opinion, which sounds reasonable to me. I would make it plain that Her Majesty's Government, not having been a party to the agreement, have no responsibility and that I ought not to enter into a debate on matters of opinion.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, why does the noble Earl say that Her Majesty's Government have no responsibility? Of course they have. Her Majesty's Government are a member of the Security Council, a Permanent Member, and a member of the Assembly of the United Nations, and to say that the Government have no responsibility is an act of complete irresponsibility.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, if there were any emergency arising out of this matter or any question brought before the Security Council we would play our part, but it is quite misleading to say that, because we are a member of the Security Council, we have any kind of primary responsibility for this agreement. If we are to be held responsible

553
for everything that is done by the United Nations all over the world, Heaven help us!
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is it not a question of maintaining a matter of principle, which has always surely been in the minds of any British Government, to see that justice is done in countries like this, especially in a territory where, unless this tendency of the Indonesians is properly curbed and watched for justice, it will spread to the other part of New Guinea, in which, as a Commonwealth, we are interested?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, it so happens that in the short time I was at the United Nations eighteen months ago, I had to make the pronouncement about our attitude to West New Guinea before the United Nations arrived at this decision. We felt it was a great pity that the inhabitants of Indonesia should not be given a better opportunity of expressing their opinion according to the principles of self-determination, but we are not going to get very much further if we are going on the assumption that whatever we say in New York, Her Majesty's Government are to be held responsible for what the United Nations does.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Surely we ought to hold the Government responsible for the attitude they take in relation to the British people?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I have just tried to tell the noble Earl what action I took in giving our advice on this subject to the United Nations.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PROVISIONAL ORDER (BOLTON) BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is to confirm a Provisional Order which has been made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government under Section 303 of the Public Health Act, 1875. Section 303 of the Act of 1875 enables my right
554
honourable friend, on the application of a local authority, wholly or partially to repeal, alter or amend, with certain exceptions, by means of a Provisional Order, any Local Act which relates to the same subject matter as the Act of 1875.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

TUBERCULOSIS (EXTENSION OF PAYMENTS PERIOD) ORDER 1963
2.55 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Order, a copy of which was laid before this House on April 23, be approved. For the convenience of the House, I suggest that this Order and the similar one relating to Scotland be taken together. Section 3 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, empowers the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in accordance with a scheme made by him and approved by the Treasury, to make payments to owners of cattle in return for their eradicating tuberculosis from their herds. The current Scheme, made under that provision, is the Tuberculosis (Attested Herds) Scheme, 1958. There is a similar Scheme made by the Secretary of State and applying to Scotland. These Schemes provide for the payment of bonuses to owners of attested herds either on the basis of milk sales or upon the number of animals in the herds.
The power to make these payments ends on September 30 of this year but the Act provides that it may be extended for five years on not more than three successive occasions so as to continue for five, ten or fifteen years, as the case may be, from September 30, 1958. This power to extend the period is now being sought for the second and, as things have worked out, the last time in the present draft Order, which provides that the period shall be extended for the five years from October 1, 1963, to September 30, 1968. But as no herds have entered the Attested Herds Schemes since 1959 in Scotland and Wales and since 1960 in England, final payments of bonus will be made in 1966–67, well before this Order expires

555
It is a matter for great statisfaction, which I hope the House will share, that the work of clearing tuberculosis from the national herd has progressed so well that it will not be necessary to seek a further extension of the period of payment. The fact that the Attested Herds Schemes will have run their course in less time than Parliament provided for in the Act reflects the energy with which the problem of tuberculosis was tackled by the farming community and the veterinary profession, both in private practice and in Government service. It is true that by 1950, earlier Attested Herds Schemes had resulted in one-fifth of the cattle population being brought up to attested standard, but at that time a formidable task still remained. To be able to declare the whole of Great Britain an attested area by 1960 was a remarkable achievement. Freedom from the disease was not, of course, purchased cheaply, and since 1935, when the first Attested Herds Schemes were introduced, until the end of the present schemes, it is estimated that farmers will have received about £115,000,000 in bonus payments. This is an investment in both human health and in the health of our livestock, and it is, therefore, of direct benefit to the national economy. It is an investment which we are determined to protect, and that is why it is necessary for us to go on check-testing all cattle at regular intervals and to remove immediately any reactors discovered. For these reasons, I hope that the House will approve the Order.
Moved, That the Tuberculosis (Extension of Payments Period) Order 1963, be approved.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
LORD WISE: My Lords, I am very happy on this occasion to agree entirely with the noble Lord. I appreciate the compliment which he has paid to the British farming community and to the veterinary surgeons of the country. This is a simple Order in comparison with the one he moved yesterday, and it is an Order which I think the whole House can approve and be well satisfied with. It is interesting to hear that, though the Order is to be extended to 1968, it will not be necessary to implement it up to that date. I am sure that everyone appreciates the good work that has been done in freeing the cattle of this country from this disease.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, may I add just a word in support of my noble friend Lord Wise? This is an occasion when one can say that this satisfactory state of affairs is due to a large extent to what the Government have done. Of course, the farmers have played a large part, which I should be the last to deny, as has also the veterinary profession, and perhaps at this stage a special tribute should be paid to the Ministry's veterinary staff, particularly to Sir John Ritchie, who has been head of the veterinary department throughout the course of this scheme. It is a great cause for satisfaction that in such a comparatively short space of time we should have become, I think that I am right in saying, the only country in the world, with the possible exception of some Scandinavian countries, now entirely free of bovine tuberculosis in its cattle. As the noble Lord has said, it is a matter for congratulation and benefit not only to the agricultural industry, but also to the national health. It gives me great pleasure to associate myself with what my noble friend Lord Wise has said.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, perhaps I may say one word about the human aspect of this. Other countries, and particularly Western countries, are doing a great deal in this field, but I think it should be put on record that, as a result of the clean milk policy of this country, which includes the pasteurisation schemes as well as tuberculin-testing (and I would remind my noble friend that it was a Labour Government which introduced the Clean Milk Bill in 1950), orthopædic hospitals in this country, which 25 years ago were full of small children suffering from bovine tuberculosis, are now closed. Indeed, so many of these children's hospitals throughout the country, where originally the majority of the cases were attributable to infected milk, are empty that it is now possible for local authorities and regional councils to ask themselves how they will use these empty buildings. I think that is a tremendous achievement, and it would be a good thing if the noble Lord could bring this to the attention of the whole country. Unfortunately, chastity has no gossip value, and chastity has no newspaper value. If the children were infected, then there would be headlines—
A NOBLE LORD: Chastity?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Yes. There are two ways of interpreting chastity, but perhaps the noble Lord knows only one. It would be delightful if the whole country recognised the great progress which had been made in this field.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to say a word of congratulation from these Benches to all concerned, and particularly to the veterinary profession, which I believe has played a yeoman part in this remarkable achievement. I should like to ask the noble Lord one question in regard to Irish cattle. When I was a boy we had large numbers of Irish cattle come into this country, and particularly to Wales, and they were a great asset to the farming community. When I was in the West of Ireland a few years ago I found that they were in great trouble there, because they had not put into force the particular tests that we had with regard to tuberculosis, and for this reason many of their cattle were not admitted to this country. As a result, great hardship was caused to the farmers in Western Ireland on this score. Considerable steps were being taken by the farming community there, under the leadership of a Colonel Blood, who is, I gather, a descendant of the gentleman who tried to steal the Crown Jewels in the reign of Charles II but, fortunately, failed. But this particular Colonel Blood was having more success in his field than his ancestor had, and he was doing a great deal in regard to the marketing of cattle, clean milk and tubercular free herds. I wonder if the noble Lord could give any indication of the effect of all this on the Irish cattle trade to this country.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, since my noble friend has raised the point, and since I am farming in Ireland and have an accredited herd there, perhaps I might inform the House that the position now is that tuberculosis has been eradicated from 20 of the 26 counties which are an accredited area. Only cattle from those counties which include
558
the whole Western area, to which he referred, are now coming into this country.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have given their approval, encouragement and support to this Order. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for his words about the Animal Health Division of my Ministry. The suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, will of course be examined with the great care that we always give to her suggestions. I can tell the noble Lord who asked about Irish cattle that all Irish store cattle imported to Great Britain are, as his noble friend said, attested, and all Midland and Western counties of Eire are now attested areas.
LORD REA: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether that applies to Charollais cattle?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, Charollais cattle have been imported from France only under special licence. So far, there is no other legal method of importing them, except under special Ministry of Agriculture licence; and naturally these have to be passed from an animal health point of view.

TUBERCULOSIS (EXPENSION OF PAYMENTS PERIOD) (SCOTLAND) ORDER 1963
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Tuberculosis (Extension of Payments Period) (Scotland) Order 1963, be approved.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NURSING HOMES BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.9 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Reduction of Exchange Equalisation Grants in respect of low rent income]:
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to add to subsection (4):
"( ) The year 1963–64 shall cover the period from 29th August 1963 to the end of the financial year".
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Hughes, who has been unavoidably detained, I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name. He deployed the arguments in support of this Amendment fairly fully on Second Reading, and therefore I should prefer to move the Amendment formally, listen to the Minister's reply, and then decide what action we should take in regard to it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 27, insert the said subsection.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD CRAIGTON: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, cannot be here to move his Amendment. What he wishes done is important to the Scottish local authorities, and I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I reply as though he had moved the Amendment as forcibly as he spoke about this matter on Second Reading, because (though we do not agree with him) he regards the putting off of the date of coming into operation of Clause 3 as exceedingly important. After the Second Reading, I talked to the noble Lord and promised him that I would examine this point most carefully. I have done so, and I am bound to say that I do not find this to be an Amendment that should be made. Although I
560
will quote some figures to support this contention, the real argument here is not one of timing or figures but one of principle.
The Government are being asked, in effect, to put off the operation of Clause 3 for three months in order to give local authorities time to take the necessary steps to enable them to get their rents up to 85 per cent. of gross annual value by August 29. In showing why it is not right for this Amendment postponing the effect of Clause 3 to be accepted, I must give the background to the clause and say why it is being introduced at this particular time and in this particular way.
As I said on Second Reading, the purpose of Clause 3 is not to raise rents, but to restrict Exchequer liability where Exchequer grant is paid on housing deficits due to the charging of unreasonably low rents. The clause originated from the 1960–61 Report of the Public Accounts Committee, published in the middle of 1961. There they recommend in terms that
"early consideration should be given to the exclusion from the calculation of Exchequer equalisation grant for housing deficits which are due to the charge of unreasonably low rents."
It was announced in November, 1961, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State accepted this recommendation, and that fresh legislation would take effect in May, 1963, after consultation with the local authorities. At about the same time the Secretary of State was making it clear to local authorities that he regarded gross anual value as a guide to reasonable rent.
The first chance to legislate was this Bill, published in October last year, as we had promised in 1961 to do, and this Bill had its Second Reading in another place last November. The Bill continues Exchequer equalisation grant, with some changes, and operates from the beginning of the year commencing May 16, 1963. In the Bill we set the standards against which the actual rent incomes should be set, and not a target that authorities have to achieve. We are not making authorities charge rents above or at a certain level. We are saying simply that if their rents are below that level it is not right that the extra housing deficit should rank for grant. If the majority of ratepayers wish to continue these low rents, that is up

561
to them. It is within their control. The taxpayer was contributing through Exchequer equalisation grant, and now he is protected.
What matters is that the Secretary of State should fulfil his undertaking to the Public Accounts Committee at the earliest possible opportunity, which is the beginning of 1963–64. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, made the point that some of those local authorities who have not raised their rents already will find it difficult—though few indeed will find it impracticable—so to raise their rents for the remainder of 1963–64 as to achieve an 85 per cent. average during the whole year. At first glance, this worried me, too, as the noble Lord knows. But on careful investigation I am convinced that this is not a good case at all, for two reasons.
First, there are, I am informed, quite a number of authorities, who, when they became aware of these provisions in the Bill, raised their rents so that they will achieve the 85 per cent. average for 1963–64. The warning was there for all to read; and they heeded it, even if they had not heeded the advice so often given, that gross annual value was, in the Secretary of State's view, a guide to reasonable rent. Those who find themselves—those with whom the noble Lord is concerned—in the temporary difficulty that this Amendment seeks to overcome, cannot really blame the Government. The Government gave them ample warning and these people have failed to heed it soon enough. There are always exceptions, but I must also make the general point that, over Scotland as a whole, to achieve the 85 per cent. figure rents would have to go up only to 90 per cent. for the last nine months of 1963–64.
Secondly, I have looked most carefully into the financial effect of accepting or rejecting the noble Lord's Amendment. The reduction of grant is, as he said, not the shortfall between actual and notional rents, but only the percentage of grant for that authority in that shortfall. I calculated what reduction in grant under Clause 3 the more badly placed authorities—those with low rents and receiving a high percentage of grant—could have if they simply increased their rents to the 85 per cent. mark for the last nine months of the year. The figures brought out show reductions, broadly, of the order of £2,000 to £10,000—that is, about 1 or 2 per cent.
562
of the total grant amount they receive. One of the cities which the noble Lord mentioned, Aberdeen, would show a deduction figure of £7,000 out of a grant of £530,000; one county, Stirling, £12,000 out of £550,000, and another, Lanark, £16,000 out of £2 million.
But there is another significant set of figures which the Secretary of State could not ignore. These are the amounts which, as the Public Accounts Committee noted, represented an unfair burden on the taxpayer. Even on an 85 per cent. basis (and one could make it worse by taking it on a 95 per cent. basis, which the Bill ultimately seeks to attain) some authorities have been receiving in past years large sums simply as a result of charging what from the point of view of this Bill are unreasonably low rents. For example, the city that might lose £7,000 next year got in that way £26,000 in 1962–63, and the county that might lose £12,000 got £53,000, and the one that might lose £16,000 got £80,000. Of course, as I say, if we made the figure 95 per cent. the calculation would be worse.
I am entirely satisfied that in no case would any reduction of grant, consequential on Clause 3, represent a sufficiently serious hardship in 1963–64—and that is the only year affected—to justify the action suggested by the noble Lord, even if no prior warnings had been given. Nor, though I have examined them—and I have no doubt that the noble Lord would have raised them again to-day—do I find anything misleading in the statements of Scottish Ministers in another place. They were made in the context of the provisions of Clause 3, which were there for all to read, and many local authorities read them. Nor is there any serious point, as he suggested in his Second Reading speech, in the late addition of the second table. Its effect can be, in terms of grant lost, only very marginal, and for those who have so far failed to take action it may be to their advantage.
I trust that I have given an adequate answer. Those (and I sympathise with the noble Lord who moved the Amendment) who understand the mysteries of local government—and among them I include the noble Lord, Lord Hughes—know that my arguments are sound. The procedure by local authorities when a Bill is presented, and before it is passed through every stage, is well known. The

563
consequences of inaction here, for whatever reason, are, in terms of money, only fractional. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and the noble Lord who moved this Amendment, because the Amendment, and the speech I have made, will highlight the wisdom of early action by those concerned; and I trust that after the explanations I have given the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: I must apologise to the House that an engagement elsewhere, helping Fife County Council to attempt to attract industry to Fife at the Exhibition, has delayed me longer than I expected. I do not now wish to press the Amendment, for reasons which have emerged since discussing it, although I think the reasons which persuaded me to put it forward, and which I have no doubt my noble friend Lord Shepherd has advanced, were perfectly sound: that to a certain extent the Government were trying to persuade the local authorities that by taking advantage of this measure they can get something which time alone will prevent them from getting the advantage of.
Since going further into the information I received from the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, on the operation of the Exchequer equalisation grant, I am firmly convinced that in this measure the Government are perpetrating a piece of sharp practice on the local authorities in Scotland: because it does not matter what they do; they are not going to get anything out of the measure. If I understand the scheme properly—and I ought to, after all the briefing I have had from the officials from St. Andrews House last week—this is not a measure to increase rents but a measure to protect the Exchequer against having unduly to subsidise local authority rents by taking into account the housing deficiency payment as an element for the payment of Exchequer equalisation grant.
The Bill lays down certain percentages which local authorities must attain, and, so far as I can see, whether they increase their rents to attain these percentages or whether they do not, at the end of the day they will be in exactly the same position. They are going to lose exactly the same amount of Exchequer grant either way, because either they will have
564
the grant deducted since their rent has in fact reached the figure of 85 per cent. or upwards, or it will be deducted because a notional figure of that amount is put in its place. So that there is nothing which Scottish local authorities can do to retain the amount of Exchequer equalisation grant they are getting at the present time so far as the housing deficiency element of finance is concerned.
From that point of view, I think the Government, either wittingly or unwittingly, have persuaded the local authorities that by doing certain things for rent they will get more Exchequer equalisation grants than they otherwise would do. The fact remains that that is not the position. The only additional income local authorities will get will be the income they get from putting up their rents. That may or may not be a good thing, depending entirely on the level of the rents at the present time. But, as has been borne in on me by the Secretary of State, that is beside the point. This is a measure to reduce the amount of grants being paid out, and, having ventilated the subject, having shown, on the one hand, that by the timetable it is impossible for the authorities to benefit from these percentages and, on the other, that, in any event, so far as the grant is concerned they are in exactly the same position at the end of the day, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I would only ask the Minister, who has made a very long and clear statement on this matter, that we might have an opportunity of examining it, and do as my noble friend now suggests, and allow the Amendment to be withdrawn. If anything further occurs to us about it we can indicate to the Secretary of State and perhaps consider it on Report.
LORD HUGHES: What may be appropriate is an Amendment in a quite different form at the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, it is normal, I understand, to move that this Report be now received. There will also be a Third Reading. I should like to know whether noble Lords opposite would like me to move that the Report be now received, in which case we can discuss on Third Reading the point which the noble Lord raised.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It is a question of time and the Business of the House. If there had not been such a controversial point arising from Scotland on this Bill, perhaps we should be in a different position. But if the Leader of the House would agree, I should prefer that the Report stage take its usual form and that we should now go on with the rest of the Business to-day.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, it occurs to me that for the local authorities to be paid grant this Bill must receive the Royal Assent by the 16th of this month, and I understand that it is not correct or allowed to have the Report and Third Reading together. Delay might therefore occasion very great difficulty for the local authorities: we might not have authority to pay them grant if we were to delay the Report stage at this juncture. So if your Lordships do not mind, I think I must take the responsibility for saying that we can, if necessary, carry out any procedures on Third Reading in this House. I must take personal responsibility for moving now, That this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Craigton.)
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I have no objection to that course, if my noble friend is aware that he can come back on his point at Third Reading and, if necessary, move an amended form of Amendment.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, it is possible on Third Reading to move an Amendment in this House, although we do not normally do so.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I think that in the circumstances which the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has indicated the Government will obviously be obliged
566
to give consideration to any reasonable Amendment which is proposed on Third Reading. We do not know whether they will accept it, the Government not always being reasonable; but that is a different kettle of fish.
On Question, Report received.

FORT WILLIAM PULP AND PAPER MILLS BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL
3.27 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Derwent.)
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is in his place, because on this Motion we wish to raise the question of Business for the day and the position with regard to the process of Business in general. The Amendments remaining on the Paper, some of which are very important, are likely to take a considerable time and, after our experience of last evening, one begins to observe the weariness of Members of your Lordships' House in Committees of this character and our being unable to provide sufficient Members in the House to have really representative decisions taken upon matters of importance. We feel, therefore, that it would be quite unwise either for us to promise that we can get all the Amendments which are still on the Paper through the House to-day or, on the other hand, for the Government to say that they intend to sit to whatever hour it takes to do so. We are not paid servants and there is some limit to human endurance.
In the circumstances, therefore, I think we ought to make it clear to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that we were not satisfied with the situation last night, and I am sure that the result of that was that the Government themselves were not satisfied either. So I

567
think we ought to have perhaps a word from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House as to what he considers the position with regard to to-day's Business and possible future Business of the House.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I think we must get on with to-day's Business and see how far we get. The intention is to conclude the Committee stage to-day. Obviously it is a matter which the noble Earl can raise again. I did not happen to be here last night, but I understand that the weariness was on the side of the Opposition rather than of the Government.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I do object to that, when, after having adjourned for Dinner, the maximum number that the Government could get into the Committee Division was insufficient to form the legal quorum for a Division to be effective. I think that is the Government's responsibility, not mine or my Party's. That really was the position and it is quite likely to happen again if, day after day, Members of the House are to be subjected to these very long sittings, and certainly without the reserves in this unelected House for the Opposition to be able to meet that situation. That is unreasonable. I am quite prepared, as the noble Viscount has suggested, to go on as far as we can with this Bill, but I think that some time limit ought to be settled for to-day. Noble Lords were here until half-past ten last night after the Division, and that surely is late enough for the detailed work that is put in here in Committee by people who are not patient oxen of the Government but are here in an unelected Assembly. If it is necessary, I would be very glad to confer with the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House as to what time limit we should have to-night.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, naturally I am always glad to confer with the noble Earl. At present it is our intention to conclude the Committee stage. I do not want in the least to say anything provocative to the noble Earl, but I must point out that the quorums for Divisions apply to Lobbies on both sides. What I am informed happened last night
568
was that the Opposition were too weary to go into their own Lobby.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House, ought to have apologised for his absence last night, but, typical of him—so cocksure of his followers, whom he regards as Lobby fodder—he does not apologise at all; he really ought to have done. I was not here last night myself, and I do apologise to the House, especially to my noble friends, for not being present. Who knows?—if I had been present I might have been able to help the Government in their misfortune. I am a little doubtful if I would have done, but theoretically it is possible. I think the noble Viscount should treat the point of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition with respect.
We must make up our minds, or the Government must make up their mind, whether your Lordships' House is to work the hours that the House of Commons does. I must say I am sorry for the House of Commons for having to work such long hours as they do. But one of the boasts of this place has been that, traditionally, when it gets to about 7 o'clock and a noble Lord begins to make a speech he says, "My Lords, I will not detain you for long at this late hour"—even if he proceeds to do so. I must say, from my experience of speakers, when they say their speech is going to be very short I sit back and prepare for a long, one. This habit of the Government's keeping the House sitting late hours, adjourning for Dinner, going on till ten or half-past is not appropriate to an Assembly of this sort, and I think the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition is quite entitled to protest.
All the Government seem to do is say, "We want this Bill through by a certain date; we do not put on a guillotine, but we are going to keep the House going till a certain hour", in the hope that the House will not be able to stand it and thereby will hurry up. It is not fair, not only to us but to noble Lords opposite, because they are human too. We are all God's children on both sides of the House, and it is not reasonable that in a Chamber of this kind the noble Viscount should try to keep sittings going for such limitless hours that people may have a breakdown in their health. If somebody drops dead in the course of debate in this

569
House, let everybody know who will be responsible. I think my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition has raised a reasonable point; and I hope the Government Front Bench, including the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip (who, by the way, is not here at the moment, though this is largely his business) will discontinue this custom of themselves privately deciding how long the House is going to sit and telling our people without adequate consultation.
I hope they will take into account the human strength and human frailties of Members on both sides of the House and have a little consideration and not drive us in the way the noble Viscount is proposing to do. He will get the worst of it in the end. His own people will find themselves from time to time in the same humiliating dilemma. Because it was a dilemma they were in last night—not exactly a dilemma; they were in the soup last night; and they will get into it again if they go on with this policy of driving this House too far.
I have been Leader of the House of Commons; I was for some years—that is another story. But even there, although they are accustomed to long hours, I came to learn if you over-drive them tempers will fray, health will give way; and I came to the conclusion it would be better if we could avoid overdriving the House of Commons. That is why I started the process of having the Whitsun Recess last for a fortnight and some days, which the present Government have often followed, and I think wisely, because by July honourable Members of another place begin to get tired, if people are tired they are liable to be bad-tempered, especially in another place. It is not so easy to make noble Lords bad-tempered, but it can be done, especially in the case of the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House.
I do put it to him it is unwise to treat this House almost as if it were paid double time for overtime; it is wiser to treat it as a human institution. He will not lose anything by it in the long run. He is in danger of getting people a bit irritated and tired of the dictatorial way in which the Business has been conducted. I put it to him it is not wise, even in your Lordships' House, where we are patient, to make people irritated
570
and upset and fed up. It will not pay in the end. I would urge the noble Viscount to think again about it and to take a somewhat more humane approach to the very important problem that has been raised by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair.]
Clause 35 [Local weights and measures authorities in special areas]:
On Question, Whether Clause 35 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: We come now to the merits of this question, That the clause stand part, which we are opposing on this side. It will be remembered that this was reached last night, the clause was opposed by the Opposition, the Labour Party in this House, and it was then that the Division took place; but there was not a quorum in the Division, and therefore the question fell and the Business of the House fell and the House was automatically adjourned. So we return to this business.
This Bill, and the handling of this question as to who shall discharge the functions of weights and measures inspection in Greater London, is one of the most curious pieces of legislation I have ever met. I had it in my head, but I cannot put my finger on it, that the London Government Bill provided that the question of weights and measures would be determined according to legislation in another Bill in the present Session. But, as I cannot find lit, I may have been wrong about the Bill; if it was not in the Bill perhaps it was in the White Paper or a declaration of intention. At any rate, there is nothing which determines the issue in the London Government Bill, which was the appropriate place to settle whether the London boroughs or the Greater London Council should be the weights and measures authority: that was where it ought to have been, in the London Government Bill, because that Bill determines the powers of the various local authorities in the Greater London area. But instead of being in the Bill which really was the appropriate Bill,

571
it is to be found in the Weights and Measures Bill.
How is it handled in this Bill? Not by definition, but again by statutory instrument—that is to say, by ministerial decision subject only to the Negative Resolution procedure in both Houses of Parliament if they disagree with the provision. If one looks at Clause 35(1)(b) and (c) it will be found that until the Board of Trade makes an order bearing on this matter the existing weights and measures inspecting authorities will be the existing local authorities—that is to say, in the administrative county of London, the London County Council; I think in Middlesex the same; and in Surrey, Essex and Kent I think it will be the County Council, though it may be that in some of those cases county district councils are authorities; I am not so sure. But I know that in the County of London it is the London County Council. However, the Government propose to abolish the London County Council for reasons with which we are all familiar on both sides and in every quarter of the House.
It is then proposed, having maintained the present situation until an order is made, under Clause 35(1)(c) that
"the Board"—
that is to say, the Board of Trade—
"may by order, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, direct that, as from such date as may be appointed by the order, the local weights and measures authority for such area consisting of or including that part shall be such authority as may be specified in the order."
What a Government this is! They are incapable of making up their mind even at this late stage as to who the weights and measures authority shall be. Rumour has it, probably with truth, that the Government intend that the London boroughs shall be the weights and measures authority. That means that, whereas now in the administrative County of London as it is there is one authority for this purpose, the London County Council, the Government propose that after the County of London is abolished and the Greater London Council comes into being, it will not be the Greater London Council which is the authority—this is, if my guess is right—but about fourteen London boroughs will be the
572
weights and measures authorities. This is really absurd. It is most undesirable that this business of inspecting weights and measures authorities should be shared among fourteen authorities (if that is the figure) whereas it has been done by one for perfectly good reasons which have previously commended themselves to Parliament.
We would think, even though we say this is the wrong place and that it should be done in the London Government Bill, that the right thing would be to provide in this Bill that the weights and measures authority should be the Greater London Council. It is not a question of personal social services, so the Government cannot plead that. It is an inspectoral service and is not directly concerned with local government contact with human beings, except traders and so on. There are a number of technical considerations in weights and measures. The London County Council has conducted a fair amount of technical work. There are weighing machines and measuring machines to be kept, and to be kept up to date. There is a considerable amount of research to do. Moreover, in the interests of the trades people themselves, it is desirable that the administrative standards for the inspection of weights and measures should be uniform and not subject to variation over the whole of the Greater London area, because if you have 34 authorities in the Greater London area you are liable to have 34, or somewhat fewer, standards of administration in weights and measures.
So we submit to the Committee that this clause ought to go out. If it goes out, then the Government will have to put something else in, either here, or, as I think should be the case, in the London Government Bill. It is not appropriate that this service should be split up among 34 different authorities. It is not a social, human service in the way in which we have been describing this term, even if it has human repercussions. It is not that kind of service; it is a service of inspection. It is desirable that it should be uniform in its standards over the whole of Greater London. It is desirable that the authority should be big enough to conduct research, to test, to be accurate over the whole of this matter of inspection and control of weights and measures; and I trust that the Government, having been hanging

573
about all this time, not being able to make up their minds early enough to put it in the London Government Bill, then not being able to make up their minds in order to put the definition in this Bill, and even now not seeming to be ready, or the Minister of State for the Board of Trade, may be able to say that the Government will put down a definition clause on Report or an appropriate provision in the London Government Bill.
That they could do. But why this should not be settled on the Floor of Parliament, I do not know. I think it ought to be, and that this should not be a matter which is determined by statutory instrument in the way proposed, because when we get the statutory instrument all that this House and all that another place can say simply is, "Yes" or "No". There can be no amendment of the provision of the measure itself; there is merely a fiat "Yes" or "No". I say that the Government are treating the House of Commons with contempt, and are now treating your Lordships with contempt. They got punished last night for doing that, and I hope they will get punished to-day for doing it.
At any rate, we do not assent to this clause going through. There was once a book written by a former Lord Chief Justice called The New Despotism which denounced all this delegated legislation. I did not agree with the learned Lord Chief Justice, but this sort of thing gives him a bit of a case. This is tyrannical; it is deliberate dodging of Parliament, not only of your Lordships' House but of another place as well. It really is shameful conduct on the part of the Government. If they believe that the responsibility is with this House, which has boasted that it is the guardian of liberty, the check on tyrannical and bureaucratic government is to do what we want it to do—namely, to omit this clause, so that the Government will then have to take, at any rate constitutionally, the right Parliamentary course.
3.49 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DERWENT): I do not think the Committee will want me to answer at great length. The case put by the noble Lord was put by his colleagues at considerable length yesterday and I gave an answer. Noble Lords
574
opposite did not like the answer; I can give no other answer to-day. The point of this clause is—
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: You had better be polite, too. You will get into trouble, too.
LORD DERWENT: The noble Lord wants me to give one answer to-day having given a different answer yesterday. Why he should expect that on the same question, I fail to see.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Be courteous.
LORD DERWENT: The London Government Bill and the Weights and Measures Bill have both been introduced during the current Session. Both Bills will require the Board of Trade to direct which local authorities in the Metropolitan region shall be weights and measures authorities. The London Government Bill may be altered during its course through Parliament. Furthermore, when it has passed through Parliament, two or more of the local authorities may decide, in so far as weights and measures alone are concerned, to combine together as a weights and measures authority; and according to what is decided after that Bill has become law, so will the weights and measures authority be set up. It is for that reason that in this Weights and Measures Bill the Board of Trade have power to make certain authorities or groups of authorities the weights and measures authority after the London Government Bill has become law. If we did not have this clause in the Bill there would be no method of making the appropriate—I use the word advisedly—weights and measures authority under the other Bill. It is for that reason this clause is in.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I apologise, too, for not being here last night, but I would not say that I was 100 per cent. fit at the moment. I am wholly dissatisfied with the answer given by the noble Lord. I pass over the terseness of his opening and take the substance of his argument. Of course, this is delegated legislation carried to an extreme. It is special legislation to enable a Government Department to do in London boroughs what ought not to be done, having regard to the principles usually followed in such

575
Statutes to secure the largest efficient area possible and with the least possible expense to the Treasury. That has been the custom. There have been variations here and there from traditional history, but they have been put right as rapidly as legislation could be enacted to do it.
Here we have a situation where one is going to change over from a system which has worked quite satisfactorily in the large and wide area of the London County Council, and then to leave it to a Minister to settle on the spot the principle whether or not a borough should be its own weights and measures authority, as against what has been the practice in London during the considerable number of years the London County Council has been in existence.
The Opposition in this House has been perfectly right to pay attention to this clause. It is not easy to amend it, but it could easily be left out. If, on the other hand, the Government want to have a clause of this kind they should take it back, reconsider it and bring forward something to satisfy the House at large on Report stage. Apparently the question of cost does not appeal at all to this Government. In 1951–52 this country's budget was £4,200 million; now, under the same Government, we have a budget of something like £6,300 million a year. But there seems no prospect at all of having the proper economy set stage by stage in each branch of legislation in regard to the spending of money. Here is a case in which you would go to a deliberate increase in expenditure on the weights and measures inspectorate of Greater London by not accepting the point of view that we submit to-day. I think it is scandalous.
LORD DERWENT: With great respect to the noble Earl, I know the argument; he has explained it very clearly, and it was also made last night. The argument is not really that this clause is wrong, but that the London Government Bill is wrong. That is not a matter which we
are now debating and what may come out of the London Bill—Parliament may alter it—may not be exactly what the noble Earl or I think at this moment. It is essential that we should have some method of seeing that what does come out of the London Government Bill works efficiently.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: We are much obliged to the noble Lord. Can he tell us, in that case, what are the Government's intentions about it, and where they will bring in the appropriate Parliamentary legislation? By which Bill?
LORD DERWENT: The appropriate legislation is this clause.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Well, there we are.
LORD STONHAM: That underlines the point I made last night. It is not a discussion, nor can it be, about the rights or wrongs of the London Government Bill. Our difficulty now is the uncertainty created in our minds by Clause 35 of this Bill because of what is going to happen under the London Government Bill. That is a matter which arises from the extraordinary ill-timing of these two Bills so that we are considering them both in the same week. Therefore, obviously we are in difficulty, quite apart from the fact that when we come to consider the London Government Bill in Committee we shall be objecting to some of these provisions.
LORD DERWENT: With respect to the noble Lord, I do not think he is uncertain because of this clause. He is uncertain because of the timing of the Bill. That is not what we are discussing at the moment. He may be uncertain as regards the provision of the London Government Bill, but I do not think this clause is creating the uncertainty.
On Question, Whether Clause 35 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 26.

CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Bossom, L.

Craigton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Braye, L.

Davidson, V.

Amulree, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Denham, L.

Atholl, D.

Cholmondeley, M.

Derwent, L.

Auckland, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Devonshire, D.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Conesford, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Beauchamp, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Dudley, L.

Effingham, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Ferrers, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Newton, L.

Ferrier, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Ogmore, L.

Fortescue, E.

Lloyd, L.

Palmer, L.

Gage, V.

Long, V.

Perth, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Lothian, M.

Rathcavan, L.

Gosford, E.

Mancroft, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Grenfell, L.

Margesson, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Sinha, L.

Hanworth, V.

Meston, L.

Somers, L.

Hawke, L.

Mills, V.

Spens, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Milverton, L.

Swinton, E.

Howe, E.

Monck, V.

Templemore, L.

Hylton, L.

Monsell, V.

Twining, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

St. Davids, V.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Freyberg, L.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Amwell, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Silkin, L.

Attlee, E.

Henderson, L.

Stonham, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Hughes, L.

Summerskill, B.

Champion, L.

Latham, L.

Walston, L.

Crook, L.

Lindgren, L.

Williamson, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Wise, L.

Faringdon, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 35 agreed to accordingly.
Clauses 36 and 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Annual reports by local weights and measures authorities]:
4.5 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved in subsection (1) to leave out "Each local weights and measures authority shall, in respect of each financial year of the authority, make to the" and insert:
"the chief inspector of each local weights and measures authority shall, in respect of each financial year of the authority, make to the authority who shall send a copy thereof to the".
The noble Lord said: As Clause 38 now stands, the duty of sending an annual report to the Board of Trade falls on the weights and measures authority; that is, the statutory authority. One would think that that would be the logical way to deal with this particular problem, and that I freely admit, but I am moving this Amendment in order to give the Government an opportunity to say why they have chosen this course. It is strongly felt that the responsibility for preparing the annual report has been for a good many years the direct responsibility of the chief inspector, and also that, as has been the case for many years, the local weights and measures authority should then be required to forward a copy of the report to the Board of Trade.
Under Clause 41(3) the chief inspector is responsible generally for the operation
578
of the arrangements in his area to give effect to the purposes of the Act. He will undoubtedly be held responsible for the efficiency of those arrangements, particularly by any Board of Trade inquiry under the next clause, Clause 39. It is thought to be important, therefore, that the chief inspector should retain freedom to direct attention in his official annual report to any defects in the arrangements.
This, indeed, has been one of the important uses of these annual reports hitherto, in exactly the same manner that a medical officer of health to a borough is able in that way to draw attention, not only to health conditions in his area, but to defects which in his view should be remedied. Obviously, not the least value of such a statutory report, if made by a chief inspector, would be that it would be brought to the notice of all the members of the council of the local weights and measures authority, and not merely to one of the committees which might be largely dominated by a chairman with little interest in this branch of administration. I am not suggesting that this is a difficulty which is very rife or prevalent, but it is within my knowledge that it has happened in some places and there is some reason to think that it still maintains in some areas.
Therefore, I feel that we should not just lightly accept the decision that the Government have made so far, to put the responsibility straight on to the local authority, the weights and measures authority. There must be some good

579
and sufficient reason, I submit, and the Government should state that reason, why they have discontinued the long and satisfactory process of requiring the chief inspector of weights and measures to give the report. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 38 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD DERWENT: I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting down this Amendment because, as he said, it gives me the opportunity of saying why the Government have decided on the course they have. This clause deals with the annual reports made by local weights and measures authorities to the Board of Trade. Under existing law, local authorities are required to send in statistics only about the visits made by their inspectors to traders' premises and the equipment verified and inspected. However, in recent years it has been increasingly the practice, I am glad to say, for inspectors to submit fuller reports of their work to their authorities, and these reports are normally, or frequently, at any rate, forwarded to the Board of Trade. They invariably include the statistical information required by law. That must be in the report sent to the Board of Trade.
As the clause is at present drafted, it will be the duty of each local authority to submit a report on the arrangements they have made in their area to give effect to the purposes of the Bill—the responsibility for that is on the local authority—and the practical effect of the Amendment would be to substitute the chief inspector for the local authority; in other words, to make the chief inspector report to the Board of Trade, and not the local authority. By Clause 41, subsection (3), which the noble Lord mentioned, the chief inspector is to be responsible to the local weights and measures authority for the operation of the local authority's arrangements, and it is clearly right that, as part of his duty, he should report to his authority on the work of his department. But it is the council which is responsible for administering the weights and measures functions conferred on it by the Bill.
LORD STONHAM: Would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? Does
580
that mean that, under Clause 41(3), the chief inspector of weights and measures has a statutory duty to report to his local authority?
LORD DERWENT: Yes, it does indeed. We feel, therefore, that it is the council which should be responsible for the report to the Board of Trade: the chief inspector to the council, and the council to the Board of Trade. Whether councils should be compelled to forward without alteration or comment the full reports submitted to them by their chief inspectors is another matter. They frequently do. In the Government's opinion, it would be undesirable to compel local authorities to forward the reports of their chief inspector to the Board of Trade even in cases where the authority disagreed with the report. If the Amendment were carried, they would still have to send it to the Board of Trade, although what the inspector was saying would not necessarily be by Statute. We feel rather strongly that the final decision on the words of the report to the Board of Trade should rest with the local authority, and that is why we have tried to provide that whoever is responsible for a particular section of work should be the one actually responsible: the chief inspector being responsible to the local authority, and the local authority being responsible for sending the report to the Board of Trade. We feel that it should be the local authority's report that we receive. In that report must be certain information required under Statute.
LORD STONHAM: I regard that as a comprehensive and most satisfactory explanation from the noble Lord, and one which I not only fully accept but with which I fully agree. I am glad, however, that the Amendment was moved so that the explanation could be made, and be read by others interested in it. With that, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Expenses of authorities and compensation of officers]:
On Question, Whether Clause 40 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.17 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: We have not tabled an Amendment to this clause, but I wish to draw the attention of the noble Lord to a difficulty which will arise under the clause with regard to the compensation of a number of inspectors. I think the number likely to be affected is something like 25 to 35, whose pay, compensation and prospects of advancement may, and probably will, unless great care is taken, be adversely affected by the changes that will take place through some local authorities losing their weights and measures powers under Clause 34. Due to the timing of local government commission reviews in various parts of the country and to the delay since the original Bill was introduced in your Lordships' House two years ago, the effect of transfer on these staffs may well be harsh and complicated, as well as denying experienced officers the opportunity to continue in posts, or to continue towards posts, appropriate to their present level of responsibility. The trouble will arise particularly, as I understand it, with regard to junior inspectors absorbed into the county staff, and also to senior and chief inspectors, trained and experienced men used to exercising responsibility, who may well be placed in subordinate positions owing to these changed circumstances.
This, of course, is a serious matter. I think we are all agreed that there is almost certainly going to be a shortage of inspectors and a difficulty in recruiting sufficient trained inspectors quickly enough to carry out the considerably increased duties which will fall upon them under this Bill. Therefore it is important that we should try to avoid, so far as we possibly can, the bad effects which may accrue to experienced officers owing to changes brought about by the Bill, which changes are entirely beyond their control. I am aware that I have not given the noble Lord notice that I intended to raise this point on this clause, and I shall quite understand if he is not able to give me a comprehensive answer at this stage; but, by giving notice now, I am at least giving long notice that I may raise it again later on.
LORD DERWENT: I think I can give the noble Lord what hope he will consider is a satisfactory reply. I have had only a few seconds to think what to say,
582
but I believe it is all right. Subsection (2) of this clause is the important one dealing with the point which the noble Lord has raised. This requires the Board to make regulations relating to the payment of compensation to any employee of a local authority who suffers loss of employment or loss or dimunition of emoluments owing to the employing authority either being required to relinquish the weights and measures functions under the Bill or voluntarily relinquishing them to the county, or entering into a combination with another authority, where probably, again, there would be a reduction of staff. The regulations will prescribe whether the authority losing the function or the one gaining it is to pay the compensation, and may make exceptions, impose conditions and include directions as to the manner in which compensation is to be claimed, and to whom it is to be paid.
That is pretty comprehensive. Under those regulations provisions can also be made by regulations for the determination of any questions which may arise under the regulations. Compensation can be provided for in the case of unqualified as well as qualified weights and measures staff. The Board intend to issue, as soon as practicable after the Bill has been passed, appropriate regulations based on the precedents of Section 60 of the Local Government Act, 1958, in respect of comparable regulations relating to other local authorities. The object will be for these regulations to come into effect simultaneously with this Part of the Bill; that is to say, six months after the passing of the Bill. The noble Lord has said he would like to consider whether this is satisfactory before the next stage of the Bill. Perhaps he need not even bother to answer now. If he will let me know whether he wants any further information before the next stage of the Bill I will write to him and give him full details.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful and I will certainly study what the noble Lord has said to-morrow morning and write to him. My own feeling is that the compensation provisions are perfectly satisfactory as such. The one thing about which I am still in doubt is the possible loss of seniority or prospects of promotion. But I will certainly write to the noble Lord.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Inspectors of weights and measures]:
4.23 p.m.
LORD STONHAM 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 ".
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple Amendment and one which I hope will appeal to the Committee's sense of justice. In this matter we are concerned with a very responsible, trained staff who have great responsibilities placed upon them and who will have increasing duties to carry out. The Bill provides that weights and measures authorities must notify the Board of both appointments and dismissals of members of weights and measures inspectorate. I find it extraordinary that there is no right of appeal written into the Bill against dismissal, for example, on the ground of incompetence or on any ground other than the commission of a felony. This is a numerically small body of men with great responsibilities; with perhaps only three or four of them in a large area, each with his particular number, each a registered person and a man apart; and they are not able to transfer easily from one job to another unless on promotion.
If they are dismissed they should surely have the right of appeal. Particularly in regard to the terms of Clause 35 (on which we have just had a long, even over-long, discussion) I believe they should have this right of appeal. The noble Lord may say in reply that such a right is explicit or implicit in the Bill. I hope he will not say that, because these inspectors are a special kind of people. It should be made clear to everyone, and particularly the local authority employers, that they are not lightly to be dismissed and that they have this right of appeal. I have it in mind that these heavy responsibilities and extra duties will almost inevitably lead to demands from the inspectors for higher salaries, and it may well be that the smaller local authorities, whom the Government seem determined to make into weights and measures authorities, may not feel able to pay these salaries. They may resist the wage demands and they may therefore even dismiss their weights and measures inspectors without what I would regard as just cause.
I do not think it is of any use for the noble Lord to argue that this office of weights and measures inspectorate is just the same as any other local government employment, because it is not. The Board of Trade do not have to be notified of the appointment of a deputy town clerk or of a senior administrative assistant; but the Minister of Health has to be notified of the appointment of a medical officer of health—in fact, it is a joint appointment made with the local authority—and any medical officer of health who felt he could complain about the reason for his dismissal would most certainly have the right of appeal to the Minister.
I submit that this is an exact parallel and that this right of appeal against dismissal should be written into the Bill. The noble Lord may feel that the Amendment asks for a right of appeal in all circumstances and that that might be too much. If that is what he feels, then I would ask him to give an indication whether he would be prepared to consider a more limited right of appeal appropriate to certain dismissals for certain reasons. We could then think again on another occasion. But I thought it best on Committee stage to table the Amendment in its present terms and then to consider what further action we might decide later to take in the light of the reply of the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 33, at end insert said proviso.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD DERWENT: I am afraid I am not going to recommend this Amendment. I must therefore explain the Government attitude in this matter. It was explained in another place but it must be explained again. The Amendment is to give inspectors the right to appeal to the Board of Trade against dismissal. I think we made it clear in another place, and I repeat it now, that the right of dismissal should be—and I will mention the special cases raised by the noble Lord—in the hands of the employer. We do not think that weights and measures inspectors differ in any way in this respect from anyone else employed. The employer is the local authority, and we think it is up to the local authority to decide whether or not they wish to terminate the employment

585
of one of the inspectors. I should have thought the grounds for dismissal would normally be one of two kinds: either defects of character or technical incompetence. Those would seem to be the most normal reasons for dismissal.
Frankly, the Board of Trade would be in no position to judge whether the local authority had made a reasonable decision in respect of character; and as regards technical competence, this point was strongly made by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, in a previous Amendment on which he spoke. 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 carrying out of the functions of an inspector before he can be appointed. An appeal to the Board of Trade against dismissal for technical incompetence, therefore, can be judged only by the re-examination of the inspector concerned. I suggest that it would be a most unusual, unprecedented step to require a professional officer to re-sit his qualifying examination later in life in order to determine whether or not he retained the technical skill and knowledge necessary for his duties.
This is really a practical problem. The few cases of the dismissal of inspectors of which the Board have become aware have all been due to character defects and have had nothing to do with the man's competence. We think that the Board of Trade are not competent to judge character defects, and the employer is. The noble Lord raised the point of medical officers of health, but they have a different historic background, dating from the time when the Ministry paid part of their salaries. These circumstances have never applied to inspectors of weights and measures. In the great bulk of cases local authority employees have no right of appeal to a Minister, and we do not think it a good thing to start it for any particular branch of local authority employees. I hope that in view of what I have said, the noble Lord will be satisfied and not press this Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord is wrong in saying that all local authority employees do not have a right of appeal. A town clerk would have a right of appeal. The noble Lord also suggested that my mention of medical officers of
586
health was not a parallel, and I do not agree with him. I should have thought that the profession of inspector of weights and measures was about as ancient as the medical profession. But, obviously, the noble Lord is not in a position to accept this Amendment. He did not say—and if it is the case I should he glad if he would say it—that the right of appeal was implicit in the Bill. The noble Lord shakes his head. In that case, there is no right of appeal at all. Therefore the noble Lord might tell me what an aggrieved inspector would do and how he would get himself reinstated, if he thought that he had been wrongfully dismissed.
LORD DERWENT: He has the same rights in law as any other employee who thinks that be has been wrongfully dismissed.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Performance by inspectors of additional functions]:
4.35 p.m.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved to leave out subsection (1) and to insert instead:
"(1) The arrangements made by a local weights and measures authority to give effect in their area to the purposes of this Act may include the provision under the super-vision of the chief inspector for their area of a service for the adjustment of weights and measures, but not of other weighing or measuring equipment; and where such a service is so provided the authority shall charge such fees in connection therewith as may be prescribed; but—

(a) except by way of the adjustment of weights and measures—

(i) during the period of two years beginning with the date of commencement of this section; and

(ii) with the express authority in writing of the Board; and

(b) except for a chief inspector acting in the supervision of such a service as aforesaid,

no person holding office as an inspector who is employed in the inspection of weighing or measuring equipment for the purposes of its use for trade shall also undertake, whether as part of such a service as aforesaid or otherwise, the adjustment for those purposes of weighing or measuring equipment of any description."
The noble Lord said: Although this appears to be a long and substantial

587
change, it is, as I will explain, little more than a drafting amendment. Your Lordships may recall that when the earlier Bill was before this House several Amendments to the corresponding clause were tabled. In one of these Amendments [OFFICIAL REPORT, December 15, 1960, col. 630] the noble Lord, Lord Latham, sought to replace the words "an organisation" by the word "arrangements", and in moving his Amendment he said that local authorities took the view that in many cases there was no need to set up an entirely separate organisation for the adjustment of traders' equipment.
In resisting the Amendment my noble friend Lord St. Oswald, who was there speaking for the Government, explained that the use of the word "organisation" did not imply that separate premises, separate equipment and separate personnel must he used. All it implied was that those persons engaged in the work of adjusting should report direct to the chief inspector of weights and measures, and that a separate set of accounts should be kept so that the cost and charges for ordinary weights and measures testing work and any adjusting work carried out by the local authority could be kept separate. However, the same point was raised again on the present clause in another place, and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, while explaining that the word "organisation" did not have the meaning attributed to it by the opposition, promised to look at the wording again. This has now been done, and this Amendment will, I hope, finally remove the qualms which have been felt about the drafting of this particular subsection.
The clause now makes it clear beyond doubt that separate premises and separate equipment are not required to be used for adjusting traders' weights and measures. Moreover, although inspectors of weights and measures are still precluded from adjusting traders' weights and measures two years after the date of commencement of the clause, and the persons employed on adjusting work will still be required to report to the chief inspector of weights and measures, there is no prohibition on such persons' performing a dual function
588
—namely, of assisting an inspector in his duties under the Bill and of adjusting traders' weights and measures. This is the alteration in the clause which in another place we undertook to make. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 11, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Derwent.)
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, in paragraph (b) to leave out "a chief inspector acting" and insert "supervising or assisting". The noble Lord said: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that his Amendment is no more than a matter of drafting. He has recounted accurately the dispute we had in December, 1960, with his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, about the connotation to be attached to the words "arrangement" and "organisation". In its original form, this subsection was seriously criticised by local authorities. In another place, the Parliamentary Secretary undertook to reconsider this and presumably this Amendment is the result of that reconsideration. But the Amendment now proposed does not meet the defects which the local authorities envisage; indeed, all it does is to change the wording, somewhat ingeniously, leaving the requirements of the clause precisely the same.
We are anxious to avoid the expense of providing special staffs, expensive equipment and transport in order to continue to afford a service which has been made available to traders by the majority of authorities for over seventy years. In order to comply with the requirements of Clause 43(1), as written in the Bill and in the noble Lord's Amendment, one authority of which I have knowledge would require to employ at least two additional assistants, purchase duplicate sets of testing instruments and provide two vans, at an annual cost of about £2,000—and all this for fees which in the year 1961–62 totalled, as respects this authority, some £305. I am assured that losses of this character, measured of course by reference to the size of the area covered by the authority and the population, are made in respect of the provision of this service.
If the Government really wished to abolish local authorities' adjusting services, as it is believed they do, they could not do so more effectively by writing an absolute prohibition into the Bill than by putting in what is, in fact, in Clause 43(1) and their current Amendment. What we see in this connection is an assistant working under the supervision of an inspector, and when necessary, particularly at temporary rural verification centres, using one set of testing equipment, which should be permitted, to adjust simple weights and measures as a convenience to traders. The noble Lord's Amendment could easily be adapted to meet these requirements by altering a few words in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), which is what this Amendment to the Amendment does.
The adoption of this Amendment, in the altered situation which would thus exist, would, if the service is to be continued, save wasteful use of manpower and of capital resources. As it stands at present, without the Amendment that I am moving, the subsection would require the chief inspector to supervise the adjustment. Why should this waste of his time and technical skill be continued in the wasteful way I have indicated? It is therefore to be hoped that this Amendment to the Amendment will be accepted by the Government. It involves no question of policy, but only a question of economical and efficient operation and administration of the service. I accordingly hope that the noble Lord will be able to indicate that, if necessary, there will be another think, with the remaining half (shall I say?) of the defects dealt with and removed, one half having been already removed by the Parliamentary Secretary's further consideration, to which the noble Lord referred. I beg to move the Amendment to the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
In paragraph (b) leave out ("a chief inspector acting") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Latham.)
4.44 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: I am afraid that we do not like the Amendment to the Amendment, upon two grounds. First of all, there is a matter of policy, to which we object, which comes out in the Amendment to the Amendment; and secondly, we believe there is still some misapprehension about the effects of the
590
clause. This Amendment to the Amendment would permit inspectors other than chief inspectors to supervise or assist in the supervision of the adjusting of traders' weights and measures. We do not think it would be right (and this is the matter of policy) to allow any inspector to supervise the adjusting service. The service is a part of the arrangements made to give effect in the area to the purposes of the Bill when it becomes an Act.
LORD LATHAM: May I interrupt, for clarity's sake? I did not suggest that the chief inspector should provide, but that he should supervise. That is quite different from provision.
LORD DERWENT: But I think the Amendment to the Amendment will allow the ordinary inspector to supervise.
LORD LATHAM: Supervise or assist?
LORD DERWENT: To supervise. It is that that we do not like. We do not think he ought to be allowed to supervise, because the chief inspector is made responsible to the local authority by Clause 41(3).
LORD STONHAM: If I may interrupt, I think the noble Lord is wholly wrong in taking this view. If he reads the last six lines of his own Amendment, which we do not seek to alter, it makes it perfectly clear that
"no person holding office as an inspector…shall also undertake, whether as part of such a service as aforesaid or otherwise, the adjustment for those purposes of weighing or measuring equipment of any description."
That is quite conclusive, and we do not propose to alter it.
LORD DERWENT: I am advised that the effect of this Amendment does alter that. I will have another look at the drafting, but that is what I am advised, and I believe it to be so. If I find that I am wrong, I will come back to noble Lords.
There still seems to be some misapprehension about the provisions of this clause, particularly when it comes to staffing, expense and so on, which the noble Lord explained. The fact that a chief inspector is the only officer authorised to supervise adjusting of weights and measures does not mean that his physical presence is necessary all the time the adjusting is going on. Nor does

591
it prevent an inspector and an adjuster from working together in the same room, either in the weights and measures office or elsewhere. All it means is that, so far as adjusting is concerned, the adjuster will work independently of the inspector, reporting direct to the chief inspector. At times when he has no adjusting work the adjuster will be quite free to assist the inspector with the latter's duties. What the Amendment to the Amendment does not provide is that the chief inspector is entirely responsible for this. He need not be there, but he must see that it is done properly; he supervises. I am advised that the effect of the Amendment would be to allow an inspector to supervise.
LORD STONHAM: I should like the noble Lord to realise that we regard this as a matter of importance, and we feel that the Government have taken the wrong decision unless (the noble Lord will not tell us this, and I hope that it is not the case) they are determined to wipe out this valuable service which weights and measures authorities in many parts of the country give to traders. I ask the noble Lord to forget London, and to forget the big cities, so far as weights and measures are concerned in this matter, and have regard only to the situation in his own Yorkshire. Weights and measures people will arrange to take a village school; an assistant will set up his equipment, and the people will come from miles around bringing their weights for testing and so on. The assistant perhaps will test a weight, add a little bit of lead, stamp it, and say, "Sixpence, please"; and that's that. It is an extremely valuable service to people who would otherwise have to go long distances to have these things tested.
The weights and measures authority do not earn any money out of it; in fact, the service is an expense; it is a cost which is never recovered. But because they are aware that it is a very valuable service they want to continue it. They, and we, are afraid that the noble Lord's Amendment to the Bill does not, without our Amendment, cover this point. They are afraid that it means we shall have to set up an organisation which will be so expensive that they will be obliged to say that they are going to discontinue
592
this modest and valuable service altogether.
I think the noble Lord gave the whole game away with his first words when he introduced this Amendment, because he said that it is little more than a drafting Amendment; and my understanding of a drafting Amendment is that it is a different form of words but leaves the meaning unchanged. I do not know whether the noble Lord is getting the point about his draft Amendment. This whole mass of words, about 30 lines and 150 words, is just a drafting Amendment, whereas my noble friend has said there has been an ingenious use of words to get rid of the word "organisation" but to leave the actual effect exactly the same as it was before.
What will happen if the Government do not accept our Amendment to the noble Lord's Amendment? There will be an end to this service, because it is going to be too expensive for local authorities to carry it on. That means depriving people of the chance of getting their weights and measures adjusted and kept right; as a result, they may well fall into error, and eventually bring prosecutions on themselves. The scale-makers could not be bothered to provide a service of this kind: they want merely to sell new weights, and not to repair them. They are just not interested in doing a repair service like this; so unless this adjustment is done in this way by the inspector's assistant it will not get done at all. We feel strongly that this is the position, and I should like the noble Lord to have respect for this opinion, not because I am expressing it, but because it is the view of people who know vastly more about this question than I do, or, possibly, any other Member of your Lordships' House. I would ask the noble Lord, therefore, to consider very carefully before he rejects my noble friend's Amendment, and, even if he feels obliged so to reject it, to give an assurance that it will be very carefully considered, and that all we have said will be taken into account so that we may have a more successful result at the Report stage.
LORD DERWENT: I will return to the noble Lord's Amendment, to cut out the words "a chief inspector acting", and to substitute "except for supervising or assisting". The Amendment then

593
goes on, "no person holding", and I think that if the noble Lord will look at it again he will find that anyone can supervise. I would ask him to look at his own Amendment again to see whether, in fact, that is not what it means.
LORD LATHAM: It is not what it is intended to mean.
LORD DERWENT: What it is intended to mean is something quite different. I really think that is what it means, and it is for that reason I must resist the Amendment. If the noble Lord at the next stage, having seen what I have said about it, will put down another Amendment we can re-argue it. But on this one I am, in fact, advised that anyone can supervise. So I do suggest that the noble Lord will do what I have said and have a look at the drafting again and see if I am not right. If I am right, clearly, it must not be accepted.
LORD LATHAM: Let us be fair to each other. The noble Lord has undertaken to reconsider his Amendment. I will do the same as regards my Amendment to the Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: I believe that ours is right.
LORD LATHAM: Is the noble Lord's proposal withdrawn?
LORD DERWENT: I only suggested that the noble Lord should have a look at his drafting; that it means something different from what he thought.
LORD LATHAM: The noble Lord said he would have a look at the Amendment and the clause, as amended, because apparently he is not certain that it meets the points that have been made by myself and my noble friend Lord Stonham.
LORD DERWENT: One must be very careful in using the phrase, "have another look", but at this moment I am myself convinced that our Amendment meets the case; but I will, of course, look at it again, and, if it does not, will let the noble Lord know.
LORD LATHAM: You look, and I will look.
LORD STONHAM: While the noble Lord is looking, I should be grateful if
594
he would read it as it would run with my noble friend's Amendment included, which will be:
"…except for supervising or assisting in the supervision of such a service as aforesaid, no person holding office as an inspector…"
and so on. That surely means that a person holding office as an inspector can supervise or assist, and it is, therefore, quite impossible to say that there would be no supervision by a qualified person.
LORD DERWENT: I did not say that. I said that anyone other than an inspector could supervise, but not a chief inspector; and I explained that we believe, as a matter of policy, that the chief inspector is the only person who should be allowed this authority.
LORD STONHAM: Does not a chief inspector hold office as an inspector? Does not "chief inspector" embrace an inspector in this context? I should have thought in this context it did. He is an inspector of weights and measures.
LORD DERWENT: No; he does not.
LORD LATHAM: In the circumstances, on the understanding that we both do some looking, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 44 to 47 agreed to.
Clause 48:
General powers of inspection and entry
48.—
(7) Nothing in this Act shall authorise any inspector to stop any vehicle on a highway.
4.58 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to leave out subsection (7). The noble Lord said: We seek to delete subsection (7) from Clause 48, because, in our view, it is going to place a very serious handicap on inspectors of weights and measures whose duty it is to ensure that goods being delivered where there is a weight requirement are of the correct weight or weights which they are said to be. Subsection (7), which we wish to delete, goes out of its way to say, in effect, that an inspector shall not stop a vehicle on a highway.
There is, of course, nothing in the Bill which specifically authorises him to stop such vehicles, and it might therefore be said that subsection (7) is superfluous. It seems to us, however, that its inclusion in the Bill is to draw attention to the fact; as it were, to deprive the inspector of his freedom as a civilian to request the driver of the vehicle to stop and to call on the services of a constable, for example, to cause the vehicle to be stopped for the purpose of the inspector's duties under the Bill when it becomes an Act.
Inspectors have had, for over 70 years, under local authority by-laws which are repealed in this Bill, powers to stop vehicles delivering coal. In another place Amendments were moved to continue these powers. We are not moving any such Amendments, but we are desirous of removing this subsection (7), which is in effect a penal clause on inspectors and a handicap. Therefore, we prefer the Bill, I think quite rightly, to be silent on this particular point. In our view, the presence in this Bill of this subsection deliberately, and quite unnecessarily, places a handicap on inspectors who are attempting to carry out their duties of protecting the public from a particularly mean type of fraud, a fraud which is practised mainly on poor people.
Inspectors are allowed by the Bill to check weights when a vehicle is stopped, and for the Bill to underline that they are virtually not to stop lorries plays into the hands of the crafty and unscrupulous delivery men. I do not mean they are all crafty and unscrupulous, but some of them unfortunately are. Some even have the inspectors' car numbers pinned up inside their cabs, even written down the reverse way so that they can recognise them in the driving mirror. Must we go out of our way in a Bill like this to handicap the inspectors and help the crooks? I have had an example sent to me, for instance, of loads of sand and ballast: 3,911 loads were tested and 459 were wrong weight. This is not a small matter. It was not just one odd one, but some 12½ per cent., one out of every eight loads, were wrong weight.
It is no good arguing, as the noble Lord does—I usually try to give his arguments first—that the inspector can follow the van to the depôt. If he did that, the bags would be changed; therefore it
596
would not be any protection at all. I noticed in another place that one of the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries, in answering this particular point, uttered as abject a lot of nonsense as I have ever listened to. He suggested that the inspector could stop a policeman and convince the constable that the lorry ought to be stopped and go into all sorts of technical arguments. The lorry would be miles away while that was going on. I think the Government have made a mistake in including subsection (7) in the Bill. It is not necessary, because the inspectors do not have any powers specifically to stop vehicles; and, at the same time, it is wrong to handicap them in doing their duty by specifically saying in effect that they must not do so. I hope, therefore, the Government will agree to delete this subsection. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 37, leave out subsection (7).—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD DERWENT: May I, before anyone else speaks on this, make certain I have the point right? I understood that in the other place the suggestion was that this power which the inspectors have now should be maintained. As I understand it, it is not the wish of the noble Lord that they should be given power to stop vehicles; he only wants the deletion of the provision which says that they cannot.
LORD STONHAM: That is right. I want to delete this subsection, which says:
"Nothing in this Act shall authorise any inspector to stop any vehicle on a highway."
That is what I want taken out.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I hope very much we shall get somewhere on this matter to-night. I cannot quite make out why the Government have been so adamant towards this whole matter all through the passage of the Bill in another place. Obviously I know the reasons they have given, but I am somewhat mystified, because I have not been able to find any body of opinion which agrees with the Government on their attitude. I think that what makes my statement more important is that I am not referring to political opinion. I cannot find any opinion, whether among consumers or weights and measures authorities or the trade or the distributors, which agrees with the Government on this particular matter.

597
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, was quite correct in the challenge, or statement, he just made to my noble friend Lord Stonham about the Amendment which was moved in another place to Clause 48, which is not the same Amendment, to my regret, that we are moving to-day. As the Committee knows, in another place an Amendment to Clause 48 was discussed which gave inspectors of weights and measures power, for the purposes of carrying out their duties under this Bill, to stop at all reasonable times a vehicle carrying solid fuel for sale or delivery to a purchaser. This suggestion was not made once, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, but it kept cropping up right through the debates in another place. It was turned down by the Government as recently as March 25; that was the last time we had any comment from them on it.
During that time a great deal of correspondence came my way on this particular matter. It came my way because of a general interest in the consumer, and it reached me from consumer organisations. It also came my way, as I have said before in this House, because of an interest I should declare, as Chairman of the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council. But the point I really wish to emphasise is this: that that Domestic Coal Consumers' Council on a matter like this represents a most responsible body of opinion. It comprises representatives of consumers of solid fuel, of distributors, both private and co-operative traders, of the National Coal Board and of the Gas Council. Perhaps I might add to that list something I think the noble Lord knows very well, and that is that among the consumers' representatives are included a chief inspector of weights and measures and a number of local authority representatives. All these people are in close touch with their authorities' weights and measures inspectors.
In the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council I have always been pleased, because I think it is right, that in the discussions we have particular viewpoints expressed on what I might call a sectional basis, and never on a political one. I have never heard anybody in that Council agree with the viewpoint of the Government on this particular matter. In so far as the Government's refusal on March 25 to accept the Amendment in another place is concerned, I did not find
598
anybody who was disposed to go along with the Government on what they were proposing to do—to withdraw from inspectors the right which they had in the past to stop vehicles.
I should have thought here that this was something which might have been given more thought by the Government. I myself raised it on Second Reading but, with due respect to the noble Earl opposite, because he had not a great deal of notice to deal with this, we did not get a considered reply, and I am greatly hoping that the noble Lord to-night will not give us the reply which the Parliamentary Secretary gave in another place. I have a reason for saying that—namely, that that reply which was given in another place I brought before my Council, without any comment from myself, and I had no idea what their decision would be. These people, who really do know what they are talking about on this particular matter, were not disposed to accept the reply of the Minister, and, furthermore, they did not agree with it.
I have here a letter from a chief inspector of weights and measures in one of our largest cities. I want to tell the Committee and the noble Lord what is in it. I do not wish to give the name of the chief inspector because I have not asked for permission to do so, but I am quite willing to show the Minister the letter afterwards; I think it is most important. He has been talking about the efforts of the coal trade to deal with that minority of traders, referred to by my noble friend Lord Stonham, who are guilty of offences; and the chief inspector goes on to say to me—I quote:
"Thus, when greater power is sought by trade and inspector alike, the Government seeks to sweep away one of the most important powers in coal supervision so that a dishonest dealer may in the future just drive away out of the local authority area as the inspector approaches."
Then this inspector gave me various examples of where the coal merchant's delivery man had attempted to do that and had been prevented from doing so—subsection (7) was not then in operation.
The chief inspector goes on to say:
"Assuming Clause 48(7) becomes law, I am morally obliged, as the officer responsible to the city's ratepayers for commodity control, to find some way to circumvent its provisions. At the moment, I foresee that during the bad months of the year, from December to March, I shall have to ask for uniformed

599
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."
Then he throws one grain of comfort to the noble Lord, I think, when he says that
"…the Bill produces some positive improvement in consumer protection, but the negative effect of Clause 48(7), particularly in large industrial cities, cancels out the positives to such an extent that I consider that the protective service which I provide in this city under present legislation is better than that which is envisaged should this controversial clause become law."
I would suggest that if a chief inspector of weights and measures writes to that effect it is something which should be taken into consideration.
I really take the viewpoint that this Amendment put forward by my noble friends and myself does not go far enough, but I thought that I would be moderate this afternoon and see whether we could get a grain of comfort from the Government on this particular matter. I hope that the noble Lord realises that this is a matter which the industry, the distributors and the local authorities feel strongly about, and which they are not willing to let drop; and, if the noble Lord could look at this and could give us some hope to-day, I think it would be much appreciated.
LORD DERWENT: The noble Baroness has put me in a most extraordinarily difficult position. I came here prepared to answer at length what I believed was behind this Amendment, because I thought it was going to rest, irrespective of what it said, on a mistake in drafting—therefore I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham—and was going to ask for powers that would enable these inspectors to stop lorries. That in fact is the basis of the speech of the noble Baroness. I do not think that on this particular Amendment I should go into my answer to that one; I shall deal purely with the Amendment on the Marshalled List. I am in some difficulty—
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: May I just interrupt the noble Lord to say that I hope he will deal with what I hoped was quite a large part of what I was saying—namely, this statement from
600
the chief inspector, which deals solely with leaving out subsection (7)?
LORD DERWENT: It purports to do so, but of course it deals with the wider question of how to stop lorries, and that really is not the Amendment on the Marshalled List. I want to explain my difficulty about this Amendment to the noble Lord. It is not quite so easy as he thinks. If we accepted this Amendment it would leave the whole question in the air. In the ordinary way that would not particularly matter, because if they had never had this power and you leave the matter in the air they would not assume they had got it. But if one accepts that, then having had the power to stop, they may assume they still have that power while in fact they do not have it. Moreover, if they tried to stop a vehicle, whether this subsection were in the Bill or not, and the driver refused to stop, the position is that he could refuse to stop unless one could prove that he knew who was trying to stop him, which is an almost impossible thing to prove; there is no power to stop him under the Bill. There is no such power under the Road Traffic Act. Under the Road Traffic Act the only people with power to stop are police constables in uniform. I agree that this does not take away, or give, a power in this clause, but we are of opinion that it leaves the matter so much in the air that if we agreed to this Amendment it might lead to a considerable amount of trouble.
I say frankly that I thought this was a mistake in drafting and I was prepared to meet the much wider case which the noble Baroness has put. At the moment I cannot accept it for reasons which I have stated. I want to have another look at this in view of what the noble Lord said. I would be greatly obliged if he would withdraw this Amendment, let me have another look at it, and let me write to him as to what effect we really feel it will have, leaving the matter in the air. Then, if he wishes to put down another or different Amendment, I can re-argue the matter later.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: May I raise a point while my noble friends on the Front Bench are making up their minds? My information is that the noble Lord opposite is not correct. I am informed that, contrary

601
to what the Parliamentary Secretary said in another place, and what I believe the Minister has now repeated, that only a police officer in uniform should be able to stop a vehicle, Section 224 states—I quote
"…it shall be lawful far a person authorised by a highway authority…",
which is not the same thing.
LORD STONHAM: I must inform my noble friend that I had made up my mind some time ago, but I was consulting my noble friend Lord Latham to see whether he wanted to intervene. I would just put these points, first of all. There was no mistake in the drafting of my Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: No, that was my misunderstanding.
LORD STONHAM: My speech was entirely directed to the Amendment. I cannot once recall having put down an Amendment and then attempting to discuss some other Amendment which had no relation to it, so I am arguing only for the Amendment which I have moved. The position to-day, prior to the passing of this Bill, is that inspectors have the right to stop coal lorries, and only coal lorries. That is the only right they have. The only other right the inspector has is that once a vehicle has stopped he can weigh anything on it if he wants to do so; but the only lorry he can stop as of right is a coal lorry. Because of the repeal of local by-laws, that power would be taken away.
The position is—and here I am going to quote the actual words of the Parliamentary Secretary in another place—they have [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Standing Committee B, January 29. 1963, col. 531]:
"…power to request the police, as the honourable Member and I have, but I must insist that the inspector should not have the power to compel the police to stop a vehicle."
Of course they have not; I was not asking for that:
"The final decision must rest with the police when they have heard the inspector's case and decided, in view of road conditions and the inspector's case, whether they will co-operate."
And I suppose they will have time to fill up their pools coupons while the lorry is scampering off and getting away with it!
602
Therefore there is no doubt whatever about the position. All I am saying in my Amendment is this. I am not asking for the inspectors to have any powers in this matter. I am only asking the Government not to draw attention to the fact that they have no powers. It is as simple as that. I hope that after more cogitation, perhaps at the next stage, the noble Lord will accept the Amendment, which to me seems unanswerable. If he will write to me we will consider his argument, but I am almost certain that we will put the Amendment down on Report.
LORD DERWENT: One difficulty is the question of leaving matters in the air. If the noble Lord would look at Clause 48(1) he will see:
"Subject to the production if so requested of his credentials, an inspector may…"
Then you go to the end of paragraph (a), which says:
"inspect and test any weighing or measuring equipment which is…used for trade or in the possession of any person or upon any premises for such use."
I am told that it is arguable that "premises" can be a vehicle, and that is another thing I want to look at. If that is the case—and I am told that it is arguable—it may be necessary to have this subsection. For that reason I would not think of accepting it now, because it has other implications. I will look at the implications and let the noble Lord know. He is then perfectly at liberty to take any other steps he wants to.
LORD LATHAM: Why are the Government concerned to interfere with what has proved to be a satisfactory practice for many years? Why give the cheat a kind of charter of liberty by saying that there is no power? There is the power of tradition and there is the power of honesty.
LORD DERWENT: This position has not been in force for many years, because up to the passing of this Bill the inspector has the right to stop a coal lorry, and under this Bill it is taken away.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: May I have an answer to my two questions, if the noble Lord would give me them? Am I not correct in assuming

603
that Section 224 of the Road Traffic Act states that
"it shall be lawful for a person authorised by a highway authority"
to do this, and that therefore it is incorrect to say that only a policeman can do it? The second point—and I am sorry if I am being stupid—is that the chief inspector has told me that if subsection (7) remains in this clause it means that a dishonest dealer can in future just drive away out of the local area if the inspector approaches.
LORD DERWENT: Whether subsection (7) is in or out of the Bill, he can in fact drive away out of the local authority area. It makes not the slightest difference to his ability to drive out of the area, because under this Bill the power of stopping the lorry, if moving, is taken away. If it is stationary and the inspector comes up and he then tries to get away, he is committing an offence. The Road Traffic Act gives a general power to stop vehicles on the highway only to a police constable in uniform and a limited power, not to stop "a vehicle", but to stop traffic for school crossing patrols. I think I am correct in that.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I am quoting the actual words.
LORD DERWENT: He could stop it to be weighed.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: Yes, I know.
LORD DERWENT: That is an important part of the Road Traffic Act, but the general power is given only to a police constable in uniform, who can stop a vehicle as well as traffic, and a general power to stop traffic—which is not quite the same thing—in regard to school patrol crossings.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I am sorry, but I am not going to let the noble Lord get away on that basis. What the noble Lord says is quite correct, but I think it is rather a slanted interpretation. I am not being offensive. My understanding is that many inspectors appointed under the Road Traffic Act, 1960, by their local authorities use this Section 224 for the purpose intended, which is the purpose mentioned by the noble Lord, and there appears to be no
604
reason why they should not use it for the purpose of stopping coal lorries. It is done. It is not only by policemen.
LORD DERWENT: I am sorry, I am not trying to get out of this, but, as I read the section, they can stop it to allow a vehicle or any trailer drawn thereby to be weighed, either laden or unladen. That is actually the vehicle itself. It is not a general power of stopping which the highway authority can give.
LORD STONHAM: This discussion has been quite valuable. I am interested in Lord Derwent's suggestion that a motor vehicle may be "premises". When he thinks it out, he will find that a lorry is a motor vehicle so long as it is moving, and "premises" when it stops. What we are concerned with is the right of an inspector to stop.
LORD DERWENT: I will look at it.
LORD STONHAM: I think we shall come to agreement at the next stage, at least on that lesser point. In view of the assurances given to look at it again, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clauses 49 and 50 agreed to.
Clause 51:
Prosecution of offences
51.—(1) In England and Wales, proceedings for any offence under this Act or any instrument made there under shall not be instituted except by or on behalf of a local weights and measures authority of the chief officer of police for a police area.
5.29 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE EARL FORTESCUE moved, in subsection (1), after the second "or" to insert:
"in the case of an offence under section 45 of this Act".
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Milverton, I beg to move the next Amendment. It is considered unnecessary that a chief officer of police should be empowered to prosecute weights and measures offences. Such a provision may have been necessary some time ago, but with the enactment of the present Bill, containing increased powers of enforcement and control generally over weights and measures offences, and the development

605
of an efficient and experienced local weights and measures administration, it is submitted that there is no case for the conferment of general prosecuting powers of this kind upon police officers.
Police officers are not qualified as inspectors of weights and measures; nor are they responsible to the weights and measures authorities. The Board of Trade take the view that it is useful to give this power to the police, since there may be cases where local weights and measures authorities wish to pass a case to the police for prosecution because additional offences have been committed. It is submitted, however, that where, for example, a question of larceny or fraud arises in addition to an offence against a weights and measures enactment, there is no reason why joint prosecutions should not be undertaken by the police and the weights and measures authority together. There may be a case for the police to prosecute an inspector of weights and measures who commits an offence under Clause 45. But apart from this special case it is considered that the prosecuting powers under the Bill should be vested in the weights and measures authority acting through their own inspectors. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 32, after ("or") insert ("in the case of an offence under section 45 of this Act").—(Earl Fortescue.)
LORD DERWENT: Will noble Lords opposite allow me to deal with Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31 together, because they all deal with the same subject and are related points? Of course, this being a Committee stage noble Lords can take up my remarks afterwards. Subsection (1) of Clause 51 provides that proceedings for an offence under the Bill, or any instrument made under it, are to be instituted only by or on behalf of a local weights and measures authority or by a chief officer of police for a police area. The three Amendments would have the effect of removing, and in one case limiting, the power of the police to institute proceedings. One Amendment seeks to give the Board of Trade this power, and another seeks to give it to the chief inspector of weights and measures as well as to the local authority. So all three Amendments really deal with the question: who should be allowed to prosecute?
606
May I first refer to the question of the powers of the police to institute proceedings? They already have this power under existing law, and the Board have no evidence that the powers of the police to prosecute weights and measures offences have ever caused any difficulties. On the contrary, they have evidence that the police have prosecuted weights and measures offences, and have even, on occasion, been requested to do so by the local authority. Generally speaking, this has been where some other offence or offences have been committed by the same person, and it has therefore been convenient for the police to prosecute in all the offences. That has been the usual case when the police have been asked to prosecute on behalf of the local authority.
The real point is this. What appears at first sight to be a straightforward weights and measures offence may, on investigation, reveal facts which indicate the existence of much more serious offences—for example, larceny or conspiracy to defraud—which the police are the proper authorities to handle. As my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary said in the other place when this matter was discussed there, it is particularly in these circumstances that the powers of the police to prosecute are necessary, when offences other than weights and measures offences are also involved. There have been a number of cases of this kind, and the evidence has been handed over by the local authority to the police who have prosecuted, with the weights and measures inspector appearing in court as a witness for the prosecution. That has happened quite often.
LORD STONHAM: Would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? Even if he accepted our Amendments, there would be nothing to prevent a local authority from handing over certain matters to the police for prosecution.
LORD DERWENT: May I go on with the argument on the three Amendments? As to the Board of Trade being authorised to institute proceedings, as is proposed in one of the Amendments, the Government believe that the proper authorities to prosecute for weights and measures offences are normally the local weights and measures authorities, and in exceptional circumstances the police. We see

607
no reason to extend to the Board of Trade the power to prosecute.
The proposal in Amendment No. 30, to give specifically to chief inspectors of weights and measures the power to prosecute, is unnecessary. The power given by this clause to local authorities may be delegated by them to chief inspectors or other persons authorised to act on local authorities' behalf. The terms of Clause 41 make it clear that the chief inspector, who is authorised by his local authority to prosecute for an offence under this Bill, has power to do so. For these reasons I ask the House to reject the Amendment which we are talking about, which is the first Amendment.
EARL FORTESCUE: In view of the Minister's statement, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (1), to omit "chief officer of police for a police area" and to insert "Chief Inspector of Weights and Measures". The noble Lord said: May I move Amendment No. 30 and, like the Minister, embrace in my submissions Amendment No. 31? As the noble Lord the Minister will know, this matter was dealt with in December, 1960, in conection with the first Bill. If I may say so with the appropriate respect, the Minister has advanced no new argument against the Amendments as compared with those which were forthcoming in December, 1960, through the agency of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. We still press for the deletion of the power to the police to institute proceedings.
For the most part, this weights and measures legislation is highly technical, and its purpose is to control trade and trading practices, rather than the punishment of criminals. I would not give an unrestrained interpretation of that, however. It is strongly felt that the power to institute proceedings should be restricted to bodies advised by experts who are qualified and experienced in trade practices, and able to evaluate the propriety of prosecution or otherwise. For this reason it is urged that the power to institute proceedings should be restricted to local weights and measures authorities, to the Board of Trade and
608
to persons acting on behalf of those authorities.
It may be argued that the police have had all these powers since 1926, but there was a good reason for this in 1926 inasmuch as certain police authorities were then also responsible for the administration of the Weights and Measures Acts. So far as is known, this arrangement now persists only in the case of one authority, and it is understood that that authority is in course of changing over to civilian administration. Inquiries have been made of the Institute of Weights and Measures Administration into the extent to which the police have exercised their powers. So far as can be ascertained from an exhaustive inquiry, there have been no police prosecutions under the Weights and Measures Acts during the past five years. I was therefore a little surprised to hear the noble Lord the Minister say that prosecutions had been numerous. I think that was the word he used.
LORD DERWENT: I said that there have been cases of this kind. Those are the words I used.
LORD LATHAM: I thought the noble Lord qualified it by saying that there had been a number of cases. I wrote down the word "number".
LORD DERWENT: There have been a number of cases of this kind.
LORD LATHAM: However, it seems to me that there is an unanswerable case for regarding this as a civilian procedure, and I hope that, on reflection, the Minister may be able to accept the Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 32, leave out from ("the") to end of line 32 and insert ("Chief Inspector of Weights and Measures").—(Lord Latham.)
5.40 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: I am sorry; but as to the case of the chief inspector, it is not necessary for it to go into the Bill; the local authority can make him a prosecuting authority, in effect, so we need not worry about that side of the Amendment. As to the Board of Trade, there seems to be no particular reason why they should have this power, which they have never needed and do

609
not want to exercise. The matter which is really of substance in these Amendments is this question of the police. We believe that there have been a number of cases—I do not say a great number, but a number of cases—and it has been found necessary. If there had been any mishandling by the police of any of these cases, or unwarranted interference with weights and measures authorities by the police, then I should say that we would look at it; but all the evidence is on one side. These powers have not been used very often, but they have been used. Nobody has ever complained about the way the police have behaved: that they have taken prosecutions which should have been taken by local authorities, and so on. I am sorry; I must resist the Amendment.
LORD LATHAM: I am surprised that the noble Lord should go on talking about "a number of cases".
LORD DERWENT: "A" number of cases.
LORD LATHAM: Not within the last five years—after the most diligent inquiry.
LORD DERWENT: I am afraid I have not got that information with me.
LORD LATHAM: I have given the information to the Committee, and it is in direct conflict with your own.
LORD STONHAM: I hope that the noble Lord will study this a bit more. I am not disputing what he has said about the chief inspector. It may well be that he can be empowered by his local authority to prosecute, and I do not doubt that in the great majority of cases, as of now, the chief inspector will be the operative prosecutor. But this is a matter which goes deeper than that. The weights and measures authorities, and certainly the weights and measures inspectorate, feel that this change is not only entirely unnecessary and unjustified but is an actual affront to them. Now inquiries have been made in order to get the facts right on this point which my noble friend Lord Latham twice pressed, and, so far as we are aware—and it will be up to the noble Lord to correct us if we are wrong—there have, in fact, been no police prosecutions in weights and measures matters for five years. More than that, the old police powers in this matter came
610
under the Act of 1926, when indeed the old weights and measures Statutes were really common informer Statutes.
My understanding of the position at present is that the only remaining police authority for weights and measures purposes is in Lancashire—only one—and that will presumably disappear. With the disappearance of that authority as a weights and measures authority will disappear the need for the chief officer of police to have any powers of any kind under the Weights and Measures Act. It seems an extraordinary time, when police powers have virtually died out completely in weights and measures matters, now to reintroduce them in a new Statute. I really cannot see any justification for it. The noble Lord made quite a point of those cases where, apart from a weights and measures offence, there was some other felony which, of course, the police would have to deal with: but the police would deal with that in any case because it would have to be referred to them by the local authority. There is no question about it.
I would ask the noble Lord to consider the reverse side of the medal. The police have a great many duties, but it is impossible for them, even chief officers of police, to have great knowledge, skill and experience in weights and measures matters. They are matters as to which the weights and measures inspectorate have to undergo long training and acquire great experience over the years. It might well be possible—indeed, it could arise—that an over-zealous young constable, having read one or two facts about the Weights and Measures Act, might cause considerable difficulties, merely through a lack of knowledge. I do not think—and the activity going on prompts me to think I am right—that the noble Lord has really considered this point. Obviously, he is not very well briefed on the number of prosecutions by chief officers of police in weights and measures matters; he is not very well briefed on the number of police authorities still continuing weights and measures powers; and he has put forward only one point which can be shot down immediately, and that is that some weights and measures offences have other offences which are police matters mixed up with them. If that is the case—and I am quite sure that it does arise on occasion—then what would happen

611
immediately would be that the local authority would call in the police in regard to those offences which were not strictly weights and measures matters; they were felonies of some other kind, and would obviously be dealt with by the police.
I do not think that in this matter we have really had any answer at all, except what amounts to saying that the Government have made up their mind, not having thought very much about it, and are not prepared or are not ready to answer the facts that we have put forward. I can only suggest to my noble friend who moved the Amendment that we may have to consider a strong protest about this unless we can get an assurance from the other side that the matter will be looked at again.
LORD DERWENT: May I now give the information for which I sent and for which the noble Lord asked? The statistics quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, related only to county councils and county boroughs, not to the many other weights and measures authorities. Even the county councils and county boroughs have in the last five years passed cases to the police. I have here a questionnaire which was sent out to county councils and boroughs, and these are some of the questions and answers:
"Has your authority, within the past five years, passed to the police any report by an inspector of weights and measures disclosing, in addition to weights and measures offences, other offences such as larceny? If so, state precisely what action was taken by the police".
There were 14 county councils which said, "Yes", and 17 boroughs said, "Yes". Another questions is:
"Has your authority, within the past five years, instituted any proceedings under the Weights and Measures Act in which police officers have been the principal witnesses?"
Of the county councils, four of them said they had, and two of the boroughs. Then:
"Has your authority within the past five years, prosecuted a weights and measures offence in the same court as police have prosecuted the same offender for other kinds of offences committed at the same time?"
Of the county councils, six of them said, "Yes", as did five of the boroughs.
As regards the action the police might take on their own—this is a different one, but I will read this one, too:
612
"How many informations, if any, for weights and measures offences have been laid in the area of your authority by police officers during the last five years?"
The 24 county councils which were asked replied, "None"; 24 boroughs were asked, and the reply was, "None".
LORD STONHAM: That is confirmation.
LORD DERWENT: This is interfering with the weights and measures authority's work: that is the suggestion put forward. The other cases were where, in fact, the police had had cases of their own and had been asked to join them with the others or to pass them on. The police do prosecute, and there is no reason to take this power away from them. It has been working satisfactorily, and there has been no difficulty. We really do not see why we should alter it now.
LORD LATHAM: That information proves the accuracy of the figures given by my noble friend and myself: that there were no prosecutions which were purely for offences under the Weights and Measures Act and others were associated with other offences.
LORD DERWENT: There was none associated with county councils and county boroughs, but there were some—I am afraid I do not have the number—with the other weights and measures authorities.
LORD LATHAM: What you need is a computer.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clauses 52 and 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Regulations and orders]:
5.51 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: I do not think this Amendment needs very much explanation. It is intended to require that the Board, before making any regulations under Clause 47, shall consult with weights and measures authorities who, with their inspectors, will be controlled by the orders under this clause. I must say that it seems to me a little difficult to understand why this provision has not in fact been put into subsection (2) of this same clause. However, for some reason best known to Her Majesty's Government

613
it has been omitted, and I hope very much that the noble Lord will feel inclined to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 24, at the end of line 24 insert—
("(6) Before making any regulation under Section 47 of this Act, the Board shall consult with and consider any representations with respect to the subject-matter of the regulation made to the Board by such organisations as appear to the Board to be representative of local weights and measures authorities and inspectors.")——(Lord Faringdon.)
LORD DERWENT: This follows the usual practice, which I will explain. This empowers the Board of Trade to make general administrative regulations with respect to the manner of performance by local weights and measures authorities and their inspectors of their functions under the Bill. What, in fact, the Bill says is that important matters—and this is the usual practice, I might say—are dealt with by order and consultation is compulsory. Minor matters are made by regulation and it is not the practice to make consultation compulsory. But, in this particular case, although we do not want to vary the usual method of dealing with it, I will repeat an undertaking given by my right honourable friend in another place that consultation with the local authority associations and the Institute of Weights and Measures Administration will take place except for matters obviously of no importance. But otherwise those consultations will take place on the regulations. On the orders they have to take place. I hope that that will be satisfactory.
LORD FARINGDON: I thank the noble Lord for that reply. I am perfectly satisfied. I would apologise to the Committee for moving this Amendment. If I had read Hansard of another place I should have seen the answer given there.
LORD DERWENT: I may have put it more clearly.
LORD FARINGDON: I congratulate the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clauses 55 to 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Transitional saving for effect of certain orders as to milk or bread]:
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words from "shall" to "are" and to insert instead:
"until the repeal of that Act by virtue of section 63(1)(b) of the Act have effect subject to the amendments hereafter specified in this section; and the Bread Order 1953, the Bread (Amendment No. 2) Order 1956 and Article 4 of the Milk (Great Britain) Order 1962".
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I will take Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 together. The effect of these Amendments is to allow milk to be sold generally in the quantities of one-third of a pint with effect from six months after the enactment of the Bill, provided that the quantity is marked on the container. Your Lordships will be aware that at the present time, milk may be pre-packed for sale only in half-pints or multiples of half a pint except in the case of milk for school children which may be in one-third pints.
Schedule 4, Part V, would allow milk to be sold generally in a quantity of one-third of a pint as well as in the present quantities; but Schedule 4 will not come into force until two years after the passing of the Bill. What these Amendments will do, therefore, is to bring forward by eighteen months the date from which the one-third pint size may be sold. These Amendments are moved in accordance with an undertaking given by the Government in another place. As the Committee may be aware, there was in that place discussion about the problems of milk vending machines and Amendments were moved with the object of allowing sales from vending machines in quantities other than those specified for retail sale generally. The Government felt bound to resist those Amendments. We take the view that vending machines are only one form of retail sale and we felt that it was wrong in principle and perhaps, almost as important, unenforceable in practice, to differentiate in the Bill between vending machines and other forms of retail sale.
For these reasons my right honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade opposed the Amendments in Standing Committee in another place which sought to exempt vending machine sales from the requirement to sell milk in specified quantities. On Report in another

615
place an Amendment was moved to allow sales of milk vending machines only in one-third pint quantities six months after the Bill is enacted. On that occasion my right honourable friend said that, while he could not accept that Amendment (which would differentiate between sales from vending machines and other sales), if it were the general wish that the Bill should allow the earlier introduction of the one-third pint as a permitted quantity for all retail sales the Government would be willing to move an Amendment in your Lordships' House to allow one-third pints, provided they were marked with their quantity, to be sold through all retail outlets, including vending machines, six months after the Bill came into force. That is the purpose of these two Amendments: to bring forward the date when retail sales of milk may be made in one-third pints. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 10, leave out from ("shall") to ("are") in line 16 and insert said words.—(Lord Derwent.)
LORD STONHAM: I appreciate that this Amendment is moved to fulfil an undertaking given in another place. It springs from the pressure which was applied in Commttee stage and on Report in another place for an Amendment in respect to milk vending machines to make milk vending an economic possibility or to continue it as such. I imagine that the noble Lord is under the impression that this Amendment permitting the sale of one-third pints will do what he hopes it will. Unhappily, circumstances have changed since this Amendment was discussed in another place, and this Amendment is now practically useless for the purpose for which it was intended. It will be quite unnecessary if the Government accept—as I hope they will—an Amendment which I shall move when we finish discussion on the present Amendment.
I am expressing the views now which have been communicated to me by the Central Milk Distributive Committees, which consist of the Amalgamated Master Dairymen Limited, the Co-operative Union Limited, the National Association of Creamery Proprietors, and the National Dairymen's Association; and similar views have been put forward by the National Farmers' Union. So that
616
this is a representative body of opinion, representing all the milk producers and, I believe, all the milk distributors. They are against the noble Lord's Amendment to legalise for all purposes the use of the one-third of a pint container, first, because the introduction of the third of a pint almost certainly will lead to a reduction in the consumption of milk, because customers who may take half a pint will turn to the smaller container; secondly, to pack milk in these small containers, 24 to a gallon, is uneconomic, and thirdly, while third of a pint bottles suitable for children began to be introduced in the early 1930s, there is no reason why a teenager or adult should not drink half a pint. Moreover, they point out that the Hodgson Committee recommended that a third of a pint should be legalised for sale at premises of the ultimate seller but it would remain illegal for prepacked milk to be sold or delivered for sale where the foregoing provisions do not apply.
The earlier Bill we discussed in this House two years ago contained this proposal. At that time, those in favour of the third of a pint—and I was not among them—pointed out that it was a convenient quantity to sell in cafés and canteens. But, since then, the requirement for milk in such places is often dispensed from refrigerated dispensing machines, such as the machines in which four or five gallons of milk are placed in the container and milk is drawn off into individual glasses as required. This is proving very popular and there are 7,000 of these machines in use. Dairymen feel that the use of the third of a pint should be confined, as now, to the milk-in-school scheme and that at this stage in the progress of the dairy industry there is no need to introduce generally this smaller-than-usual sized container, because the industry's efforts are to sell more milk and not less.
Far from reaching the situation which he wishes to meet, the noble Lord's Amendment will deal a serious blow to the farmers, the milk distributors and the public. Though I do not approve the compromise, I fully appreciate the reasons why this Amendment was put forward. It was no longer economically possible to sell half-a-pint of milk in a vending machine for 6d. They had either to change the coin, which was impossible,

617
or reduce the quantity. The solution of the ⅓-pint container has been put forward, but that would make the milk too expensive—unfairly so.
The Minister of Agriculture has, in my view, completely destroyed the noble Lord's Amendment. It is astonishing to me that there is not more co-ordination among Government Departments—unless it is that, when one expresses a view, the other Department takes the contrary view. I should not have thought that that was the case with the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. The following letter, dated April 23, was sent by Mr. C. Coffin, of the Ministry of Agriculture, addressed to the Central Milk Distributive Committee:
"When an Amendment on similar lines was discussed during Report stage in the House of Commons, it was suggested than one-third pints should be sold in existing vending machines, which axe designed to take sixpences. I have been asked to let you know that in the Minister's view a price of 6d. for one-third of a pint sold from a vending machine would not in present circumstances be reasonable."—
I do not dispute that, and neither do dairymen. The Minister is right:—
"If it were to be charged, the Minister would feel bound to consider whether to reimpose price control of vending machine sales in line with the warning which on Mr. Hare's instructions, we gave the industry in 1960, when price control was lifted."
This means that milk distributors will not be able to sell one-third pint containers from milk-vending machines because the Minister of Agriculture will not allow them to do so. Therefore, the case for the noble Lord's Amendment is absolutely destroyed.
There has been no demand from anyone for one-third of a pint containers for any purpose other than milk in schools. The only demand for permission to sell a smaller container arises from their proposed use in vending machines, and the Minister of Agriculture has now declared that one-third pint containers cannot be used in vending machines at a charge of 6d. In these circumstances the noble Lord may proceed with his Amendment, and at this stage I am not going to advise my noble friends to vote against it; but it will be absolutely useless for the purpose for which it was intended unless the next Amendment which we shall discuss is accepted. I believe that when he moved this Amendment, to fulfil an assurance given in another place, the
618
noble Lord was not aware of this statement from the Minister of Agriculture. I submit that it entirely alters the situation, and I hope that in the light of a totally different situation the noble Lord will think again about this Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: I have no wish to enter into the question of price, because this Bill does not deal with price, except to say that 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. We have been pressed for many years to allow the one-third-pint. This size will meet the needs of people living alone, of whom it is estimated there are over two million in this country. In 1926, when the Act limited containers to half-pints of multiples of a half-pint, the one-third-pint container had not come into use.
I do not wish to over-state the case, but I find the noble Lord's argument quite staggering, particularly, if I may say so, coming from that side of the House. No distributor is compelled to sell one-third-pints, if he does not want to do so, and the argument that consumers should be compelled to go on taking the half-pint size, even if they want one-third of a pint, in the interests of the trade, is staggering. Dairies need not sell one-third-pints but, if they are prepared to sell them and people want to buy them, why should they be prevented because it is inconvenient to the trade? I ask your Lordships to approve my Amendment.
6.10 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I think the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, knows that on previous occasions I have had something to say on the question of one-third pint bottles. I am sorry that on those occasions he did not understand me well enough, or he would not, I think, have made the speech that he seems to have made now—I am afraid that I heard only the end of it. This seems to be a question of what he calls the freedom of a person who wants to buy a third of a pint to buy a third of a pint. I should have thought that the Board of Trade would be exceedingly interested in how to cut down the cost of milk to the consumer. Anybody who knows anything about the milk trade knows quite well that one of the biggest factors in this matter now is the question

619
of the delivery. If it is continuously made legal in this way to sell one-third of a pint, then there will perhaps always be a comparatively small number, knowing what the consumption of milk is, of persons living in their houses who will want one-third of a pint of milk.
The costs of delivery to-day are astounding. It is true that supermarkets are coming in and are very much upsetting the general basis of service to the consumer. The consumer, especially if he has a car, likes to bear the burden himself of being the fagger about of the commodities he buys. But the average housewife throughout the country has provided for her, by private and other traders, delivery at the house; and the cost of delivery of general food commodities upon which they rely upon for a daily service is rising tremendously.
There are, as I have said, before illustrations which can be given. The cost of delivery of a loaf of bread, which most customers in the country do not want to carry, is to-day something over 2½d. per loaf on the average of delivery of bread at the door, on a daily service all over the country. If you come to the question on which the Government have to be brought in, as to what is to be the general basis of costs and profit to the milk distributive trade, then you find that the costs of delivery of a third of a pint of milk at the door daily is so tremendous that there is no profit at all, and often a complete loss, on the delivery of a single bottle of a third of a pint. I think this fact ought to be taken into consideration, because the Government have to go into conference every year, it is true from the point of view of the milk trade, unnecessarily late (perhaps I should not say "unnecessarily", because it is partly due to the time taken to get the accounts completed for the period) and then an arrangement has to be come to with the Government as to what is to be the gross margin of profit per gallon for distribution. It rarely exceeds 2d. per gallon gross profit—and when I say "gross profit", I mean after including in the costs the cost of delivery.
Anybody who knows the situation knows that it is becominig increasingly difficulty to get people to work on the delivery; and that is one of the factors. But the other great thing is that, because of the cost of delivery, it is almost
620
impossible for most milk distributors to take it into part of their ordinary distribution. That is quite wrong. It may well be, I suppose, that a considerable amount is sold, and rightly so, in bulk to schools in one-third pint bottles. That is a suitable size, for the child to drink at a particular sitting, and probably if quantity were more it might not always be completely drunk. There has never been any objection to delivering great quantities in bulk of one-third pint bottles to the schools; but when it comes to delivery at the door of one-third pint bottles, there is little left, after meeting the cost of delivery out of the cost of the milk in the bottle.
I am sure that this point has been put up to the Board of Trade over and over again. I cannot for the life of me understand why they do not see the reason of this; because in the end, when it comes down to the question of settling the price of milk in the country, the costs which are then added to the usual cost of delivering a pint, with the occasional half-pint, then even the occasional half-pint and the occasional one-third pint add so much to the cost of delivery that it becomes almost impossible to get the situation which the Board of Trade would wish to get with the milk distributive trade. Those are the facts, and I know them from back to front. I have spent a great deal of my life in dealing with the expansion of milk consumption in this country. I believe that this is a thoroughly stupid and reactionary position and I still hope that the Government will reconsider it. I shall probably come back to it again.
LORD DERWENT: The noble Earl said that he did not hear the beginning of what I said. I realise his point, and I appreciate that I said at the beginning that some dairies may not wish to handle one-third pints and that others may wish to handle them though not to deliver them, because of the cost of delivery. But, of course, nobody is compelled under this Bill or under these two Amendments to sell one-third pints. All these two Amendments do is to bring forward the date on which a third of a pint may be sold. I visualise (I may, in the event, be proved wrong) that most one-third pints will be sold from vending machines or over the counter—I agree with the noble Earl there. But there may be dairies that will be prepared to

621
deliver them; and there may be some that will not want to deal with them at all. But that is not the concern of these Amendments, which merely bring forward the date when one-third pintsmay be sold, generally speaking, in the retail trade.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD DERWENT: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 29, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) Section 7(1) of the said Act of 1926 shall not apply to milk pre-packed in a quantity of one-third of a pint if the container is so marked as to indicate clearly that it contains that quantity of milk.")—(Lord Derwent.)
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
6.26 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, after Clause 61, to insert the following new clause
Temporary provisions regarding sale of milk in vending machines.
. The Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926 shall have effect (until the repeal of that Act by virtue of section 63(1)(b) of this Act) subject to the addition of the following words at the end of section 7:—
"Nothing in this Act shall prevent any sale by wholesale, or any sale by retail through a vending machine, of pre-packed
I quite see the point the noble Earl was on.
On Question, whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 20.

CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lothian, M.

Albemarle, E.

Ferrers, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Aldington, L.

Ferrier, L.

Margesson, V.

Allerton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Melchett, L.

Ampthill, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Auckland, L.

Gage, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Blackford, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Newton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Grenfell, L.

Palmer, L.

Colgrain, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Perth, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hanworth, V.

Rathcavan, L.

Conesford, L.

Hastings, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Craigton, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Davidson, V.

Horsbrugh, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Denham, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Swinton, E.

Derwent, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Templemore, L.

Devonshire, D.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Latham, L.

Stonham, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Lindgren, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Champion, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Summerskill, B.

Crook, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Walston, L.

Faringdon, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williamson, L.

Henderson, L.

Rusholme, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

milk made up in any quantity of fluid ounces whose container is marked with an indication of the number of fluid ounces it contains and with the words 'Not for sale other than in a vending machine'.
And notwithstanding anything in section 66(2) of this Act, this section shall come into force immediately on the passing of this Act."
The noble Lord said: I beg to propose this new clause which will allow the sale of pre-packed milk, provided the container is marked with an indication of quantity and is only for sale from a vending machine. On the previous Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said that he was not concerned in any way about price. But on this occasion it is impossible to run away from the situation which has been created by the acceptance of the Amendment to Clause 61. The whole of the dairy industry, farmers and milk retailers alike, and millions of the public, wish to sell and to buy six penny worth of milk from a vending machine. It has proved a great help to farmers and housewives alike. Until recently, it was possible to sell half a pint for 6d., but with recent increases in milk prices it has become

623
impossible economically to do so. The Government have acknowledged this by permitting sales, under the Amendment just accepted, of one-third of a pint. But this is only acceptable if the Amendment which I am now moving, and a consequential Amendment in Schedule 4, are also accepted by the Government. There are two reasons for this: first, the high cost of altering the machines, or the high cost of giving change, and, secondly, the convenience of the customer in keeping the price at 6d.
Even before the Minister of Agriculture said that he would introduce price control of milk if vendors sold a third of a pint for 6d., the National Farmers' Union and all other interested bodies said they did not wish to do so; that it would not be fair; that it would be overcharging; and they were most anxious therefore, and are most anxious, that this Amendment should be accepted. They want to be able to supply a quantity more nearly related to the cost, say, 8 or 9 fluid ounces, and to mark the quantity clearly on the cartons. I would point out that there are already in the Bill similar provisions relating to other commodities. For example, in Schedule 6 there are extensive provisions permitting the sale of coal and coke in non-specified quantities, provided it is pre-packed, and providing also that the intending purchaser is advised of the net contents of the packet. The same obligations would, of course, be willingly accepted by farmers and by the milk industry.
The increasing facility of automatic vending machines to meet consumer needs arising under the modern social pattern of life involves ever-growing labour and capital cost for machine manufacturers, product and packaging manufacturers and for the machine operators, distributors and retailers. Thus, the necessity of stability in product selling through machines may not compare to normal retail selling without considering the exceptional labour and financial implications; and it would be impracticable for economic and technical reasons to vary prices necessitated by a rise in the cost of milk since new and more complicated coin mechanisms to allow for a multiplicity of coins would have to be fitted in all automatic machines selling the quantities laid out in Section 3(a) of Part V to the Schedule
624
of the Bill. And dairymen would have to bear the cost of the rise in price themselves either by keeping the same quantity at a fixed price or by overcharging if they do not—which they will not be allowed to do by the Ministry of Agriculture—or bear a crippling expenditure with regard to the changing of the machine.
I would point out that the sale of liquids by value other than by volume is acceptable in petrol pumps and automatic paraffin vending machines, and it is of increasing social and economic importance to keep the single coin selling price stable and to cover changes in basic costs by varying the quantity in the carton, subject also to the safeguard, as this Amendment proposes, that the quantity must be clearly marked on the carton.
LORD HAWKE: May I interrupt the noble Lord at this point? Does he advise that the quantity should be clearly marked on the outside of the machine as well as on the carton, so that the purchaser knows?
LORD STONHAM: I have not said so in the Amendment, but I am perfectly willing, and I am quite sure the farmers and everybody else selling would be willing, that this should be done. Above all things, they want the purchaser to know the quantity that is being bought, and of course it would be on every carton, and I would agree, too, that it should be on the outside of the machine.
There are more than 6,000 vending machines in use, which have cost some £365 each. It would cost £30 per machine Ito alter the coinage used, and this would not add to the customers' convenience if they had to pay, say 7d., 5½d. or 5d. instead of the nimble 6d. It would also take a very long time to get the machines altered, all to no real purpose at all, unless the apparently stubborn obstinancy of a Government Department serves any real purpose. Weights and measures inspectors would experience no enforcement difficulties, because the cartons would be marked not only with the quantity but with the words "For sale in vending machines only". They could not be sold in any other way. I would point out that the popularity of these machines is indicated by the fact that they have multiplied twelve times in five years and now

625
account for sales of 12 million gallons of milk every year. Unfortunately, with the recent increase in the cost of milk, this development, which has been of great value to farmers, has stopped. Therefore, unless this now clause is accepted there are fears that the trade will be fined, involving serious loss to farmers and loss of convenience to the public.
One of the things which I have said many times during the course of this Bill, and the one we had two years ago, is that we should not knowingly and unnecessarily do something in this Bill which is going to damage or cripple an industry. I do not say that not to accept this Amendment is going to cripple the farming industry, but I do say that it is going to hit them very hard indeed. They cannot afford to have a drastic curtailment in the sales of milk. Nearly half these machines are in factories, works and offices where they perform a catering function. There are a number on railway stations, some in catering-type businesses and many outside dairies, where I personally know of one near my home, and they do perform a very useful function in enabling housewives to get a supply of milk when they run short and the shop is shut. In fact, they supplement the normal home delivery and, of course, provide a very health-giving type of refreshment to passers-by and travellers generally. I would point out that under my proposal there would be complete control as to measure, and there would be complete consumer protection by quantity marking.
When a similar new clause was moved in another place, the Government rejected it because of what I regard as a stubborn adherence to the custom that milk must be sold in standardised quantities. They have since moved away from that point to some extent by making one-third of a pint a standardised quantity, but I hope I have made it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that that provision, because it would be overcharging the customer, and because the Ministry of Agriculture has made it clear that they will not allow it, will be of no use at all for the vending of milk through these machines. Therefore, unless he wants to inflict a very serious injury on farming communities he will accept this Amendment.
I would also ask him to look at it from the standpoint of consumer protection,
626
which is the whole basis of the Bill. The Amendment, I submit, wholly satisfies all the principles we are fighting for. It is supported most anxiously by the National Farmers' Union, the Milk Marketing Board and the Central Milk Distributors Committee, which includes the Co-operative Union. I do, therefore, ask the Government to help the farmer and the public by accepting this Amendment so that it can come into operation immediately after the passing of the Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 61, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Stonham.)
6.38 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: The purpose of this Amendment is to exempt sales of milk from vending machines, and wholesale sales of pre-packed milk, from the requirement in existing law that milk must be sold in specified quantities. The exemption would be subject to the containers being marked in fluid ounces and with an indication that they were for sale only from vending machines; and that, of course, is a tightening-up of the Amendment which was moved in another place. Under existing law, pre-packed milk must be sold in specified amounts of half-a-pint or multiples thereof. One-third pints are allowed only for schools under the schools milk scheme. Containers need not be marked. Under Schedule 4, Part V, of this Bill, specified quantities will still be required but will permit one-third pints for general sale; and containers will have to be marked. That is the existing position. The proposed new clause would have effect only from the date of the passing of the Bill until Schedule 4 comes into effect. And the Amendment to Schedule 4 would, of course, operate two years after the Bill is passed. I am going to resist this Amendment for the following reasons, and I intend, I am afraid, to do it at some length, because the argument should be clearly stated.
First of all, the obligation to pack certain staple commodities in specific quantities can give very valuable protection to the consumer. Milk is, of course, one of these staple products and it has, for over 30 years, been subject to the requirement that it must be sold in fixed quantities. The Government cannot accept that sales of milk from vending machines or otherwise, should now

627
be exempted from this requirement. The making up and marking of the containers in fluid ounces would not give the consumer anything like the same protection as the specified sizes—half-pint, and so on. I repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has just said to us. This Weights and Measures Bill is a very important part of consumer protection. I wonder what the housewife who buys from a vending machine outside a dairy when the dairy is closed will think if she is told she is getting 8 fluid ounces in the carton. Will she realise that it is not half-a-pint? Will she know what she is getting? I very much doubt it. In our view, it would be a retrograde step to weaken this protection. It has been generally suggested on behalf of consumer interests that the specified quantity requirements in the Bill should be extended, not reduced.
Secondly, I resist this Amendment because to exempt sales from vending machines alone from the requirement to pack in specified quantities would breach the general principle, which applies in existing law as well as in the Bill, that specified quantity requirements for particular commodities apply equally to sales from vending machines and to other retail sales. That is the general law, too. If an exemption were allowed for milk sold from vending machines it would be—I was going to say hard, but it would be almost impossible, to see how exemptions for vending machine sales of other goods could be resisted; such things as packets of tea and the other groceries listed in Part VIII of Schedule 4. It would be very difficult to refuse special quantities for those.
Thirdly, although at present milk may be the main commodity sold from vending machines that is subject to such requirements, sales of many other goods through these machines might develop rapidly in the future. We are legislating for the future, not for what has been going on up to now. The new retailing methods change very quickly indeed. Sales through vending machines must not be allowed to become a means of evading requirements in the Bill which have been drawn up to protect the consumer. Fourthly, the issue of principle is this: are we to have one law for trade conducted by human beings and another for
628
trade conducted by machines? Should the law dictate to the machines as it does to human beings, or should the law be dictated to by the machines? In the Government's view, retail trade should be the same whether it is from vending machines or over the counter. We believe that is in the best interests of the consumer.
The noble Lord argued, that coal sold in vending machines is exempt from the specified quantity requirements which apply to most coal sales, and that milk should also be exempt. That is not a valid point. The coal exemption applies not only to vending machines but to all sales up to 60 lb. in a securely closed container. It is not only vending machines; it is a special thing for coal up to 60 lb. A comparable provision to exempt all milk sales below a fixed amount—which would need to be about half-a-pint to meet the point raised by the noble Lord—would have a very much wider impact. For example, it would apply to all over-the-counter sales and to home deliveries, and this would undermine the specified quantity requirements generally for milk.
Price is not a matter with which this Bill is concerned. One would have thought, and one has seen, that it is not beyond the bounds of human ingenuity for the trade to find a way in which machines could charge an appropriate sum for either the one-third or half-pint of milk. Every day of our lives we use machines, where change is given. Either the machine gives change which is then used for the appropriate amount in another slot, or, in other cases, we use 6d. or 1s. and the goods come out with the change attached. If the cost is 5d. the change comes out with the carton. The noble Lord talks as though it is quite impossible: but it is not; it is done all the time. In our view this proposal goes against one of the principles of consumer protection. Commodities such as milk must be sold only in certain quantities, and in no others; and it makes not the slightest difference, in our view, whether it is sold in vending machines, across the counter or by delivery. I am afraid that we shall not give way on this point because we believe that it is most important.
LORD STRABOLGI: I cannot understand the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that the same principle

629
should apply to a vending machine as to over-the-counter sales by a human being. Surely the function of a vending machine is quite different. To start with, it is used mainly by people who leave home before the milk arrives and who do not want their milk to lie on the doorstep all day in the hot sun. They prefer to use vending machines when they return in the evening. The quantities which they require are often different. Secondly, the vending machine is often used by people who wish to drink milk—as, indeed, they are being encouraged to do—in the hot summer, possibly in the street, if they are taking a walk or sitting out in the open, and they do not want such a large quantity as half-a-pint. I feel that the noble Lord's argument does not bear close examination if one considers the practical circumstances and the use to which machines are put.
LORD DERWENT: I am afraid that the noble Lord has not understood either my argument or that of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. We agree that there are many cases—2 million people living alone—who want a lesser amount of milk, and we say that it must be one-third pint or half-a-pint but not some odd amount in fluid ounces.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: I have a natural instinct to support the Government, because I think they are generally more likely to be right than the Opposition. But I am bound to say that I feel the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, with whom I seldom agree, has made out a case which requires more answering than we have yet had from the Front Bench. The noble Lord on the Front Bench asked: Are we to be slaves of machines?—as if that were almost a knock-out for the noble Lords opposite. But surely we are slaves of machines: we cannot escape from the fact. If we are going to use machines, whether they be railways or motor cars, we must operate them as they will operate, and we cannot lightly pass laws to say that they must work differently. It is true that man's ingenuity can make a machine do almost anything, including giving a penny change, or even 5d. change; but to do that costs a great deal of money—so much that the machine becomes, for all practical purposes, either unusable or not worth altering. It is a fact that 6d.
630
is 6d. and 1s. is 1s., and they will remain so until we decimalise, when it is to be presumed 6d. becomes 7·2d. and 1s. becomes 14·4d. That would solve all these problems. There would then be enough money to pay the fanner for half-a-pint of milk.
LORD DERWENT: When we decimalise shall we not have to alter the machines?
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: That leads me to the question I wanted to ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham or the noble Lord, Lord Derwent: whether Lord Stonham's proposal or the Government's proposal is such that, if we do decimalise in the next three or four years, all these machines will have to be altered, because the amount of material in the machine cannot be altered? That appears to be the principle on which the Government are standing—for example, that you must sell ten cigarettes and not nine. Is the principle (I cannot believe that this is so) that you must sell half-a-pint of milk and that you must not sell 8 ounces? I am not quite sure whether 8 fluid ounces are more or less than half-a-pint, just as the noble Lord thinks the housewife would not know. I am sure she would not. But if in fact she found it convenient to get the milk and it was cool and fresh, and the shop was shut, she would say, "Thank God for the milk", and she would not worry whether 8 oz. was more or less than half a pint or a pint—I am not sure which it is even. But surely she will judge by her own instinct whether this commodity is worth having at that place, in those circumstances, for 6d.
We cannot ignore the convenience of using coins; nor can we say, "To hell with these machines. They must be our slaves and must take account of giving change." You can make a machine give change, but only at great cost. I cannot feel at present that the Government are right to resist this. This will have implications much wider than milk; there is no question but that we are moving into a time when automatic vending will relieve men of undue and irksome labour; it is going to be one of the advances in the next few years. I can see it in all kinds of fields. Therefore, before we commit ourselves to this principle that we must sell the commodity only by weight or by

631
specific number rather than to adjust what we sell to the coin, the Government ought to give this matter a little more thought.
LORD DERWENT: To acknowledge the noble Lord's argument he should really have voted against the Bill on Second Reading. One of the main points of this Bill is consumer protection, so that the consumer knows what he is buying and it can be checked. The noble Lord is saying, "To hell with that; let us do what is most convenient"—I am sorry; perhaps he did not use that actual phrase—" If the housewife does not know what she is buying, what on earth does that matter?" That is not a matter for this Amendment, and the noble Lord really should have voted against the Bill on Second Reading.
LORD STONHAM: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Dement, in answer to his noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, has just uttered a larger untruth or inaccuracy than any that he has used in his speech, because the whole of my speech in moving the Amendment—and the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, obviously heard it—was devoted to ensuring consumer protection, in that the consumer must know what he or she is buying by quantity in the cartons of milk. Really, the noble Lord's speech is so unrelated to realities and the facts as to be quite frivolous. It has not been produced by the noble Lord, that is obvious, because he himself would not utter such nonsense.
LORD DERWENT: I believe in my case absolutely.
LORD STONHAM: Very well, then; it is remarkable what one can bring oneself to believe. But the noble Lord insisted that the housewife must know what she is buying and that we must have fixed quantities, and therefore we have this magical fixed quantity of one third of a pint. Does the housewife know what one third of a pint is? It is 6⅔ fluid ounces. The noble Lord says that 6⅔ oz. is a fixed magical quantity which the housewife will instantly recognise even if there is to be precisely one-third of a pint; but to sell 8 or 9 fluid ounces is not a fixed recognisable quantity. I took down what he said, that the housewife would not know what she was buying. I will
632
tell the noble Lord that any housewife worthy of the name would be well aware that when she got 9 fluid ounces she was getting more than when she got one third of a pint. That is what would concern her and she would know that she was getting better value for money. The noble Lord said that the requirement to sell in fixed quantities is a great safeguard to the consumer. Greater safeguards to the consumer are those which ensure value for money.
LORD DERWENT: I said, in certain commodities.
LORD STONHAM: Milk is the commodity that we are talking about now. It is a much greater safeguard to the consumer that he should buy 9 oz. for the 6d. and know he is getting it than to get one-third of a pint for 6d. and not know that it is a lot less than 9 oz. The second thing—and the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale dealt with this—was that to exempt sales of milk from vending machines alone would make it difficult to resist demands for similar sales for other goods. Is not the noble Lord aware that precisely these same milk vending machines sell other liquids on which there is no control at all over quantity? It makes absolute, fantastic nonsense of the noble Lord's argument.
Then he says that there would be demands for similar off-quantity sales from vending machines in regard to other goods. What happened when the price of chocolate went up? They did not alter the coin in the machine; they gave a little less chocolate. It is the same in regard to all forms of confectionery in vending machines; and, as I think Lord Fraser of Lonsdale said, you get 9 cigarettes instead of 10, simply because the tax was increased and the price went up. The noble Lord is not in this standing for consumer protection at all, and his noble friend need not, holding the views he does, have voted against the Second Reading of the Bill. In my view the noble Lord is standing for sheer obstinacy, and in so doing he, and those who advise him, are doing serious injury to the farming industry, which he ought to know has not been having a good time of late.
He said that it was not beyond the bounds of ingenuity to devise a means of giving change; but I quoted the

633
cost—something like 6,000 times £30—for altering the machines so that they can take other coins. Just imagine the labour costs, for instance, in attaching with a piece of selotape or something like that, a ½d or 1d. on each carton in order that it can give change.
LORD SHEPHERD: And disease.
LORD STONHAM: Yes. That would in fact quite destroy any possibility of the thing being economic. We have given the facts from this side of the Committee, and they have been supported from the Benches opposite. We have indicated that this Amendment is badly needed by all the organisations representing the farmer, the Milk Marketing Board, all the organisations representing milk distribution; and we have shown that it is wholly within the principles of consumer protection and for the convenience of the housewife. There can be no reason at all why the Governernment should reject this Amendment other than the knowledge that they have more bodies on that side than we have on this. I can only hope that if they do not accept the Amendment and we go into the Division Lobby your Lordships will vote according to the facts and support the Amendment.
6.59 p.m.
LORD AMPTHILL: As the industry with which I am connected has been mentioned—I refer to the tobacco industry—I should like to say that it uses a tremendous number of vending machines. I think that probably my comparatively small unit of that industry has more vending machines than the number mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. Unlike the milk industry, the tobacco industry is subject to some impost of duty which of course affects the price at which cigarettes are sold. We do not
make packets of ten or twenty cigarettes especially for automatic machines; the automatic machines are adjusted and altered to give change. Although that costs a certain amount, it does not cost anything like the figure which Lord Stonham mentioned. I have not briefed myself at all to talk on this, but if I had known that tobacco and automatic vending machines were going to be mentioned I would have come with a raft of information. But the tobacco industry, for all we know, may next August have another 10 per cent. surcharge put upon it, and we shall have to adjust all our thousands and thousands of automatic machines. I agree with Lord Stonham that if we could go back to the good old days of 6d. for ten and 1s. for twenty cigarettes everything would be "jammy", but we are out of those days now and I think that the milk industry has to face up to modern finance in the same way as has the tobacco industry.
LORD SHEPHERD: I do not think the noble Lord was quite fair in his comparison between the alteration of a tobacco-vending machine and the same process in relation to a milk-vending machine. I should not like to say what is the margin of profit in the tobacco industry and the tobacco distributing trade. I would hazard a guess that it is considerably larger and wider than that which is available to those who produce and sell milk and those organisations which sell milk through vending machines. Therefore, it is not a very fair comparison for the noble Lord to say, from his experience in the sale of tobacco, that it is easy to carry out alterations to a milk-vending machine.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents 39.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Rusholme, L.

Archibald, L.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Attlee, E.

Hughes, L.

Stonham, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Latham, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Champion, L.

Lawson, L.

Summerskill, B.

Crook, L.

Lindgren, L.

Walston, L.

Faringdon, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Ampthill, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Aldington, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Conesford, L.

Allerton, L.

Colgrain, L.

Craigton, L.

Davidson, V.

Hanworth, V.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Denham, L.

Hastings, L.

Newton, L.

Derwent, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Palmer, L.

Devonshire, D.

Jellicoe, E.

Perth, E.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lansdowne, M.

Rathcavan, L.

Ferrers, E.

Long, V.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Ferrier, L.

Lothian, M.

St. Oswald, L.

Fortescue, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Strang, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Margesson, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Grenfell, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Templemore, L.

On Question Amendment agreed to.

Clause 62 [Other savings]:
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved, after subsection (1), to add:
"(1A) No contract for the sale or carriage for reward of any goods shall be void by reason only of a contravention of any provision of, or of any instrument made under, this Act with respect to any document which is, or is required by that provision to be, associated with the goods."
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that a contract which is otherwise legally carried out is not made void simply because of a failure to comply with the delivery note provisions of the Bill. Under Clause 23 and certain provisions of Schedules 5, 6 and 7, a delivery note is required to be supplied with goods in certain circumstances, and failure to supply a delivery note is an offence which carries the penalty specified in Clause 52(2). Furthermore, the omission or misstatement of any particulars required to be in the note is also an offence and carries a similar penalty. I understand that, in the event of such an offence, not only would the penalties provided by the Bill apply, but in certain circumstances the operation of Common Law would, in fact, render the contract itself void. The law regarding the voidability of contracts is highly complex, and I do not propose to involve myself in it here. But it should be sufficient to say that as a general principle a contract is illegal and void at Common Law if the manner of its performance is prohibited by Statute; and the failure to comply with the statutory requirements to supply a delivery note would be likely to amount to illegal performance rendering the seller's contract void. This would mean that a seller who delivered goods but failed to supply a delivery note, or supplied a defective delivery note, would not only be liable to the statutory penalty under the Bill but would also be unable to
636
recover payment, even though the goods complied fully with the terms of the contract.
I think your Lordships will agree that it would be unreasonable in such circumstances that the seller should be penalised twice over. The Amendment therefore provides that no contract for the sale or carriage for reward of any goods shall be void by reason only of a contravention of the delivery note provisions in the Bill or in any orders made under it. In all other respects the Common Law is not affected. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 8, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl Ferrers.)
LORD SHEPHERD: It would not be void merely because there had been a contravention of the issuance, and not of the content of, a delivery note? If the delivery note is irregular in some shape or form, that might have an effect upon the carrying out of the contract. Would the noble Earl say whether action would still be possible if the content of the delivery note was irregular?
LORD LINDGREN: Before the noble Earl replies, may I ask this, which joins up with what my noble friend Lord Shepherd has said? Surely, there is some onus on the person receiving goods. A delivery note is a document setting out the goods to be delivered. The person signing it then accepts the responsibility for having checked the goods delivered. There is the association between the delivery note and the invoice for the goods. With the delivery, issue and requisition of goods there is often a mistake; one cannot avoid it. But there is some responsibility on the recipient of the goods, and the signature for the goods must have some relationship to the issue of the delivery note. Having listened to the noble Earl who moved the Amendment, I cannot see that any responsibility

637
is placed upon the person signing a delivery note for the receipt of the goods.
EARL FERRERS: I think that the point is this. If you deliver goods and do not deliver a note, then you are prosecuted because you have failed under this Bill to deliver a note. But under Common Law as it stands at the moment a person could say that someone had not fulfilled his contract because the note was not delivered, and therefore he would not pay him for the goods, even though he had received the goods. That is what this Amendment tries to do away with.
On Question, Whether Clause 62, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My noble friend, Lord Boyd of Merton, asked me whether I would make a point on this clause on his behalf. He would have been speaking as one of the Wardens of the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths. He had hoped that this might have come up last night—he was very optimistic, I think, in hoping that. Most unhappily, he could not be here to-day, so of course I said, remembering in particular that he was so long my chief, that I should be only too glad to speak on his behalf.
The point is as follows. It is proposed to abolish the use of pennyweights for trade, and the goldsmiths are somewhat disturbed at the effect this might have on hall-marking. For example, if a person were charged after the abolition of the use of pennyweights for trade with selling a piece of plate which was below the standard defined in pennyweights, he could plead that the standard was meaningless because it had been abolished. Goldsmiths accept the advice of the Board of Trade, that the use of the pennyweight for defining standards of fitness is not, in the words used in the Bill, a "use for trade". But they wonder whether a bench of magistrates might be inclined to rule otherwise, on the ground that a criminal Statute should be clearly understandable. Clause 62(1) does not help, because it refers to use of measurements by agreement. There would not necessarily be an agreement between an assay office and a person prosecuted. Indeed, I can well imagine exactly the opposite.
638
It was suggested that a new subsection to Clause 62 might be used to make it clear that this Bill shall not affect existing legislation concerned with hall-marking. But Her Majesty's Government saw difficulty on this, I understand, because it might cast doubt as to whether use by others, for similar purposes, of units not included in the first Schedule and not specifically referred to in Clause 62 was prohibited. It would greatly help if my noble friend could give an assurance that the use of the pennyweight for defining standards of silver will remain effective when the provisions of Clause 10, including in particular subsection (8), take effect.
LORD DERWENT: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd of Merton for having given me plenty of warning about this. I was able not only to talk to the draftsmen but to the legal people, so we know where we are. I am quite satisfied that the use of the pennyweight for defining the standard fineness of silver is not a "use for trade" within the meaning of Clause 9 of the Bill. There is, therefore, nothing in the Bill to prevent the use of the pennyweight for defining such a standard, and I can give the noble Lord the assurance that the use of the pennyweight for defining standards of silver will remain effective when the provisions of Clause 10, including in particular subsection (8), take effect.
THE EARL OF PERTH: May I thank the noble Lord very much. I am sure that the Company of Goldsmiths will also welcome the assurance the noble Earl has been able to give.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Foods]:
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD AIREDALE): The Lord Chairman points out that this Schedule and Schedules 6 and 7, which are contentious because Amendments have been put down to them, are also extremely lengthy and are divided, each of them, into a large number of separate Parts. It may be to the convenience of the Committee if I observe these separate Parts and, at the appropriate times, put the questions to the Committee, "That

639
this be Part I of the Schedule", "That this be Part II of the Schedule", and so on.
Part I [Meat and food containing meat]:
7.20 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY moved, in paragraph 2(b), to leave out "sold" and insert:
"weighed for the determination of the purchase price in the presence of the buyer".
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment particularly, and the two ensuing Amendments, are designed to restrict the sale of meat by gross weight in cases where the meat is not sold and weighed in the presence of the buyer. We believe, and wish to put forward, that where meat is sold it should not have a container which weighs more than a thin piece of wrapping paper. We submit that if a housewife receives her meat in a container she may not know the net weight and she may not want to pay for the meat plus the container. We feel that if the container plus the meat is the basis of the purchase price, then unless our Amendment is accepted the purchaser will not know whether she is paying the net purchase price or the price of the meat plus the container.
The real principle involved here is our desire to see articles sold by net weight, and it seems to me that the Government are really extending the principle of selling goods gross weight—in other words, by weight including wrapper—which is something about which we are not at all happy. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, could tell the Committee if it is true that in the United States and in a good many other countries, including countries in the Commonwealth, the net weight has to be given. I have been looking up the Report of the Hodgson Committee, and it seemed to me that that Committee recommended this also, with certain limited exceptions. Furthermore, I think it is true to say that the Institute of Weights and Measures are also in favour of this principle. I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell us why the Government seem to be adamant on this issue and to take a contrary view to the people I have mentioned.
I think every one in the Committee to-night would agree that where meat
640
is weighed in the presence of the customer there must be a piece of paper on the scales; and I remember that in another place the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that this piece of paper would be of infinitesimal weight. I know that. But again we say that if it is a very small piece of meat that is put into a container, the container then may not be of such an infinitesimal weight as the piece of paper. I believe that pre-packed meat can be sold by net weight without a container allowance; and I am wondering whether the noble Lord can give us an assurance on this matter, or whether he can tell us that he will look at it again—I know it is a difficult matter—before we have the next stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 20, leave out ("sold") and insert the said new words.—(Baroness Burton of Coventry.)
LORD DERWENT: I was not quite certain whether the noble Lady was speaking only to Amendment No. 37.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: Yes.
LORD DERWENT: I am grateful to her, because the others are not on quite the same point. I agree with the noble Lady that it is a difficult point. She, I am certain, is right in theory: that wherever possible sales should, in practice, be by net weight. She asked me about the United States. I am not sure, but I believe sales there to be by net weight, although whether there are variations I cannot tell her. I believe that in this particular case, as I hope to show, the two considerations which we must have in mind are whether it is practical and whether it is hygienic.
As the noble Lady has said, this Schedule allows the sale by gross weight of certain products when sold in containers—and this is important—of less than certain permitted weights. The gross weight is allowed only when the container is less than a certain laid-down weight. The reason for this provision is that there are some goods which, mainly for reasons of hygiene, should clearly be weighed in or on some form of wrapper. It is purely a matter of hygiene. Thus, a piece of liver will generally have a sheet of greaseproof paper placed under

641
it on the scales to prevent them from becoming sticky. Many small retailers—and this, also, is important, I think—do not have the type of weighing equipment which would enable them to determine the net weight in such a case because the small container or wrapper is so small, and this subsection therefore allows the retailer to give the gross weight of the goods when the container or wrapper is below a certain weight. He can give the gross weight of goods with the wrapper.
Paragraph 2, to which the Amendment relates, deals only with non-pre-packed goods: pre-packed goods are covered by paragraphs 3 and 4. The effect of the Amendment would be twofold. First, it would limit the scope of the gross weighing provision for non-pre-packed goods to goods which are weighed for the determination of their price in the buyer's presence; that is, it would exclude any articles which had been weighed and priced in advance. Secondly, it would really have the effect of excluding meat sold in response to telephone orders for delivery. The Amendment would compel the butcher who wished to follow the common custom of putting various joints in his window with weight and price tickets already attached, to weigh these articles on his scales without the sheet of greaseproof paper which one would have thought was probably hygienically necessary. Equally, when the butcher weighed up the meat he was sending out on his delivery round he would have to put it on the scales without the greaseproof paper. In the particular circumstances, there would be little point in such a requirement.
I would remind your Lordships that the wrapper allowance for meat is really exceedingly small. For a 2 lb. joint, for example, which is a fairly big piece of meat, it is just over a quarter of an ounce—and, as a matter of fact, that would hardly register on many butchers' scales. In view of these strict limitations and what is practical and hygienic, I hope the noble Baroness will feel inclined to withdraw this Amendment, though I appreciate that it is a problem.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I thank the noble Lord for his answer. I do not intend to press this Amendment. I appreciate the difficulties; but I should like to read what he has said
642
about it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DERWENT: I wonder whether this would be a convenient moment to take some refreshment, in view of the fact that we may be sitting late. We are making pretty good progress. What would the Committee like—an hour and five minutes or an hour and ten?
LORD LATHAM: We will have the bonus—an hour and five.
LORD DERWENT: I beg to move that the Committee do adjourn during pleasure for an hour and five minutes, until twenty-five minutes to nine.
[The Sitting was suspended at half-past seven o'clock and resumed at twenty-five minutes before nine o'clock.]
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to leave out paragraph 5. The noble Lord said: I regard this Amendment as the third act in a trilogy which started some two years ago when we had a rather similar Amendment on fish and poultry. It concerns the provision that when a butcher is ordered or requested by the customer to remove some part of the meat and the meat is then delivered at a time later than that at which the order was placed, the butcher has to make a written statement comprising the original weight before the bones and part of the meat are removed and the final net weight. But if the butcher, having removed the bones and other impedimenta, wraps them up again in the same parcel he is not required to put the separate weights on the ticket. Two years ago when we had these discussions about the filleting of fish and then placing the bones and other offal back on top, the Government saw the wisdom of the Amendments we then moved and accepted them. With regard to the evisceration of poultry and such goods, they did not see the wisdom then; but in the passage of time and in this new or third Bill they have deleted those requirements. But this paragraph 5 still remains.
I freely admit that it is at present the law that if a butcher, at the request of the customer, removes the bones and part of the meat, he is required to put on the ticket not only the original weight but the

643
final weight under pain of all sorts of penalties. That requirement has been ignored continuously by butchers. In fact, I would hazard a guess that most of them do not even know it is the law. Therefore I feel that we should not be stupid about this and, as it has been the law for so long and ignored for so long, we should now take the opportunity of acting sensibly and removing it.
I do not often go to a butcher's shop but sometimes I do; and particularly to a pork butcher. I have heard him ask the customer: "Shall I remove the skin?" He removes it very expertly from the pork chop and it is paper thin, or a little more than paper thin—it might make a difference of a quarter of an ounce to the chop. The idea that the butcher must weigh the chop before and after the removal of the skin when it is removed at the request of the customer is just too ridiculous. Similarly with taking the bone out of a leg of meat or trimming off fat. I think we must agree that this clause handicaps the butcher and annoys the housewife. If, in the new Act of Parliament, we insist on its implementation, it would deprive the housewife of a service which she wants and which is of value to her. Butchers, housewives and the Government have sensibly ignored the existing law in this matter, and I think it would be wholly foolish to revive or re-enact what is in fact a dead letter. Therefore I hope the Government will accept this Amendment, leave out of the Bill this paragraph 5 and remove at least one foolish item from the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out paragraph 5.—(Lord Stonham.)
EARL FERRERS: The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has put the present position of the law clearly. This paragraph provides that where part of the meat is removed by the butcher, at the customer's request and before it is delivered, the delivery note must state not only the original weight on which the purchase price was based, but also the actual weight sent out for delivery. The noble Lord has argued his case, as he usually does, with clarity and feeling. But there has been a change in the Bill since it was last before your Lordships' House. An Amendment in another place inserted in Clause 26(3) a provision that traders shall not be guilty of a short-weight offence
644
where the deficiency is caused by treatment of the goods, which took place with the buyer's consent, between sale and delivery. This clarifies the position in cases where, for example, a joint is boned, or a fish filleted, or a chicken gutted, at the buyer's request. I am glad to say, and I know that it will please the noble Lord greatly, that the Government agree to his Amendment to remove this subsection.
LORD STONHAM: May I be allowed to say how delighted I am that the Government accept this Amendment? All I can say is that it shows the value of adjourning for dinner—and "Up the Revolution!"
Part I, as amended, agreed to.
Part II [Fish, poultry and sausage-meat]:
8.43 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in paragraph 2, to leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) and to insert instead:
"2.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph and paragraph 4 of this Part of this Schedule, goods to which this Part of this Schedule applies shall be sold net weight.
(2) When sold by retail, the quantity of goods sold being—

(a) quantity by net weight; or

(b) if the goods are weighed for the determination of the purchase price in the presence of the buyer in a container which does not exceed the appropriate permitted weight specified in Table B of Part XII of this Schedule, either by net or by gross weight.

shall be made known to the buyer before he pays for or takes possession of the goods."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that fish, poultry and sausage-meat should be sold only by net weight.
LORD DERWENT: Would it be convenient for the noble Lord to take Amendments Nos. 41 and 44 together, as they deal with the same subject?
LORD STONHAM: I am quite sure that it would be for the convenience of your Lordships, but I could not agree to take Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 here, because they deal only with fish and on these I am looking forward to a major battle with the noble Lord. I do not think that we need to spend a great deal

645
of time on this Amendment, though in my view it is important. I refer your Lordships to table B, which allows for a very small tare (if I may use that expression) of 4½ grammes per lb. on the gross weight, and proportionate allowance for greater weight. The Amendment would also cover the wholesale sale of fish, but I propose to deal with that in a separate Amendment, as it is a different point.
We feel strongly (and this feeling was expressed by my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry in the Amendment she moved prior to dinner) that the weight should be made known to the buyer before he buys, pays for or takes possession of the goods. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that goods to which Part II of the Bill applies should be sold only by net weight, except when on retail sale they are weighed for the determination of the purchase price in the presence of the buyer. As I have said, the Amendment would also remove the exception for fish when sold otherwise than by retail, but I want to deal with that separately on a somewhat different Amendment.
All the way through the passage of the Bill two years ago, and again to-day, we have fought for this principle of net weight whenever it could possibly be applied. I feel that with the goods which we are now discussing—poultry, sausages and fish—in almost all circumstances, apart from the exceptions which are provided for in another part of this Schedule, these goods could be sold by net weight; and the Amendment we propose to substitute for the sub-paragraphs already in the Bill are a very much better way than the Government's proposals and a greater protection for the consumer. I therefore trust, since we are dealing only with very light tare, that the Government will feel disposed to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 24, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) and insert the said new paragraph. (Lord Stonham.)
LORD DERWENT: I agree with the noble Lord that net weight is the proper thing when it can be reasonably applied. I am, however, going to suggest that I think it is stretching the point a little far in this connection in Amendments
646
Nos. 41 and 44. I confess that I am not altogether clear from the drafting of Amendment No. 41 what its effect would be, since, although it does not delete the existing sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2, it suggests the insertion of a new sub-paragraph (1) However, I am replying on the assumption that it relates to retail and wholesale sales of all goods covered by this Part of the Schedule.
One effect of Amendment No. 41 would be to limit the scope of the provision in paragraph 2(2)(b) which allows goods to be sold by gross weight, but limit it to goods which are weighed for the determination of their price in the buyer's presence. Like a similar Amendment on the previous Part of the Schedule, the Amendment would have the effect of preventing a seller from putting a piece of paper on the scales when he wished to weigh an article in advance, and put it in his window with a weight and price ticket attached, or when he weighed goods in response to a telephoned order for delivery to the customer.
LORD STONHAM: Would not putting the piece of paper on the scale come under Schedule A and not Schedule B of the container allowances?
LORD DERWENT: I do not think so. I am advised that this is exactly the effect this would have. But the main purpose of these two Amendments appears to be, first, to require fish, with some exceptions, to be sold wholesale by net weight; and, secondly, to exclude all pre-packed goods from the provisions allowing gross weight, and to require them to be marked with their net weight. Those are the two main objects. As to the first, the wholesale fish, I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the noble Lord would allow me to deal with wholesale sales of fish when we come to Amendment No. 42 and related Amendments which are directed to this question.
As to the second (and this is the Government view on this point, which is really the only one we are arguing), we cannot accept the proposal as reasonable or practicable—they are probably the same thing. This is the point. Fish, poultry and sausage meat are three of the various products in this Schedule which are liable to lose weight to an unpredictable extent from evaporation or

647
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—say, with a band or a wrapper round the sausages—and it is almost entirely exposed to the air, such a marking is quite impossible. This is why the Bill allows the weight to be made known to the buyer instead of requiring the pack to be marked with its net weight. If the buyer is to have the weight made known to him at the time of sale, for example by having the pre-packed article weighed in front of him, this weighing must necessarily include the container or bag: that is, it must be the gross weight. I hope, therefore, that on these two Amendments—one is a minor point—the noble Lord will think that I have made out my case.
LORD STONHAM: With respect, I feel that the noble Lord has made out his case much better than he usually does, and in the light of the explanation which has been given I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.52 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in paragraph 2(2), after "fish" to insert:
"exempted under paragraph 4 of this part of this Schedule."
The noble Lord said: On this Amendment we really intend to do battle. We feel that we have—
LORD DERWENT: Again, may I ask the noble Lord to consider, if he would take a minute to look at it, whether we could not possibly take Amendments Nos. 42, 43, 45 and 45A together. They are closely linked.
LORD STONHAM: I am entirely agreeable to that course, and I can only regret that the noble Lord was about half a sentence ahead of me in making that suggestion.
LORD DERWENT: I am sorry.
LORD STONHAM: The object of this and the other Amendments, which I am now discussing collectively, is to ensure that fish, with certain exceptions, when sold by wholesale shall be sold by net weight. I would first draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the word-
648
ing used in this Amendment, with all its faults, is the same wording as has been chosen by the Government in paragraph 20 of Schedule 6 to the Bill applying to solid fuel. Therefore, although it is a different kind of commodity, I cannot accept any fault if there should be any deficiencies in the wording of the Amendment, because I have more or less precisely copied that, and would suggest that what can be done in the case of fuel can certainly be done in the case of fish.
We have had these discussions now for two years, and all through the piece in another place and here we have been assured that it would be unfair to the wholesalers of fish to sell to their customers, the retailers, by net weight. If there is anything in which there is a greater possibility to do a legitimate "fiddle" than in selling fish by wholesale, I should like to hear about it. After all, fish in the very nature of things are wet. There is also the fact that in order to preserve them they have ice added to them. Therefore, even net weight does not mean as much in the case of fish as it means in most things. But the unfortunate retail fishmongers are denied even the consolation of net weight for the commodities they buy. They have to put up with boxes which are saturated with water and contain a varying degree of ice and water, and almost always a net deficiency in the quantity of goods which they are going to sell compared to what they have paid for. When this matter was discussed in your Lordships' House some two years ago the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, assured the House that the Government had taken the best advice and were confident that it was possible to sell only by gross weight. But under pressure he admitted that the only advice he had taken was from fish wholesalers; and therefore I regard the advice as somewhat suspect and trust that on this occasion we shall not be impressed by advice of that kind.
I would mention that among the four Amendments is, of course, an exclusion for herring which are sold by the cran measure; and I am happy to say, being a basket-maker, that the cran is a wicker basket and is a statutory measurement. Therefore, of course, herring sold by cran measure are a perfectly proper

649
weight. You will also note in the Amendments that I suggest that kit measure should be acceptable. I am not very happy about this, because kit measure is a rather unknown quantity. It normally refers to so many stones of fish, but obviously in a kit the quantity can vary. I mention these things only to show the lengths to which I have gone in order to accommodate the warm feelings of the Government towards the wholesalers of fish.
Also in this Amendment I have endeavoured to meet the Government in another way, because I have excluded such places—and there are some—to which inshore fishermen will bring their catches where there is no adequate equipment for weighing. In such cases, if the Board of Trade were satisfied, on economic or other grounds, that provision for weighing would not be justified (these would be only quite small places, but we do not want to handicap the small fishermen who would sell in this way) they could direct that the provisions of this Amendment should not apply in that particular area.
I feel that this is a most important part of this Amendment, for it is quite apparent that in all the representations that have been made by the wholesale dealers in fish, their anxiety is to ensure that there should be no inspection of fresh fish by weights and measures officers until they reach the retailer's premises; and the reason why that has been put forward has allegedly been because of the fear of delays in transit—I expect that that argument is in the noble Lord's brief; I cannot tell him which page, because I have not seen it; but I have no doubt that it is there. I should like to dispose of that argument, which does not bear examination, because the overriding fact is that wholesale trade in fish is, and has been for many years, universally conducted in terms of net weight. Therefore, what I am asking for in this Amendment is the statutory enforcement of what all good, respectable wholesalers of fish are already doing—that is, selling to their customers by net weight.
In another place in Committee Mr. Denzil Freeth, who I understand is one of the Parliamentary Secretaries, said:
"It has been the practice in the trade that boxes should be sold to the retailer on the basis of approximate weight".
650
He was very careful not to specify his authority for that statement. But the fact is that there is nothing approximate about the charges invoiced to the retailer. If the gross weights of the boxes are approximate, there is a very definite weight which is charged to the retailer, and always the invoices are in terms of weight. The weakness is that far too often far too little care has been taken to ensure that the weight packed is the same as the weight charged for, and short-weight at the wholesale stage has long been the principal grievance of the retail trade in fish.
I would point out here that there appears to be some difference of opinion among Government spokesmen in this matter, which may be accounted for by the passage in time in consideration of these Bills. In your Lordships' House on January 31, 1961, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 228, col. 138]:
"I think in fact the trade is virtually always conducted in terms of net weights when it reaches that stage."
That is the stage of sale to the retailer. Yet on February 7 this year Mr. Denzil Freeth said:
"The honourable Member for Hillsborough"—
that is my honourable friend Mr. George Darling—
"said that a number of wholesalers do in fact already sell to the retailer in terms of net weight. I agree that this is an excellent thing and should be encouraged. Indeed the time may come when so much of the trade is done in terms of net weight that it may be right to insist upon all trade being done in net weights."
I submit it is perfectly clear that time has come now; it has come in this Bill and on this Amendment, and if the Board of Trade were not aware of this fact they should certainly be so now. My honourable friend said that an increasing number of fish wholesalers are adopting the practice of weighing the fish into the boxes. That difference is very significant. The wholesalers he mentioned are voluntarily labelling their boxes with the net weight of the contents. I submit there is no valid reason why this practice should not be universal and compulsory.
I say now, as I think I said on Second Reading, that the two Government spokesmen I have referred to said absolutely opposite things from which

651
they managed to draw the same conclusion, which would make it appear that they started from the answer and worked back to their arguments. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, admitted that the Government were very much inclined to favour the recommendation of the Hodgson Committee, which advised compulsory sale of fish by net weight at both wholesale and retail stages, but as a result of conversations with people who knew something about it the Government were forced to a different conclusion, said Lord Dundee. These people he later admitted were wholesalers. It was suggested by the Minister in another place that retail fishmongers should be content with the provisions of Clause 24 of the Bill, but I would ask why they should be expected to be content. Retailers of every other food commodity mentioned in the Schedule are protected by a requirement of net weight from their wholesalers. Why should the retailers of fish be excluded from this provision?
In the case of fresh fish, the time element in handling, preparing and selling on the same day as the fish arrives is just as important as has been urged at the wholesale stage. Everyone who has paid a visit to a fishmonger, particularly in the forenoon, will have seen that his whole show may not be out; that he is taking fish from boxes. He has not had the least chance of weighing or checking their contents; he has to accept the gross weight which is given to him, and it is virtually impossible for him to establish evidence in cases of short weight. Those cases are numerous. They add to the prices which the housewife pays because the retailer has to protect himself; and the fishmonger, therefore, actually derives less protection from Clause 24 than do the traders in less perishable commodities.
I submit that the exception which the Government have made in favour of wholesale fishmongers is completely unjustifiable; it is contrary to the majority practice in the trade at present. We are entitled to insist in this Bill—as Lord Derwent has quite rightly said, we are legislating for some years ahead—that the malingerers should be brought into line by statutory provision, and that means selling at wholesale level by net weight. In those circumstances,
652
with the exceptions for which I have already allowed, allowing for all the Government objections, I think the case is unanswerable, and I trust that the Government will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 24, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Stonham.)
9.8 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: I am afraid I have not been doing my homework as well as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I have not read the remarks of all previous Government speakers in regard to the line they take, and it would appear, if they have been reported correctly by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that I do not take the same line; but mine is a line that I have always intended taking. I am going to resist these Amendments on the ground that, from a practical point of view, they are inadvisable and I think would handicap the eventual consumer. These four Amendments are closely linked, and together their effect would broadly be to require most wholesale sales of fish to retail fishmongers to be by net weight only. Broadly speaking, we do not think that in the present state of the wholesale fish trade—I am going to say a little more on this; the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, need not be upset at this sentence—a requirement to sell by net weight would be desirable. We do not think that at the moment.
Amendment No. 43 recognises that it is not practicable to apply a requirement to sell by net weight to wholesale sales of fish at some ports, because of the lack of suitable equipment. This is certainly a consideration which the Government have had in mind in not imposing a requirement that wholesale sales of fish should be by net weight, but this is not the only, or the main consideration. The most vital consideration is that fish must be sold quickly and that nothing must be done to interrupt its speedy transport to the consumer. We believe that this is what is most important at the moment. The trawlers must be unloaded, their catches weighed, sold, filleted, weighed again, packed and despatched so that they arrive at their destination early the next morning; and any slowing of this process can be serious. There is no doubt that the noble Lord appreciates this because he has left in the Bill selling

653
by kits, and the only purpose of kits is for speedy handling. Therefore, he realises that this point is of prime importance.
This process could be serious if one had to weigh more carefully and, through the activity of inspectors, checkweigh boxes at both the ports and the inland markets. This might well delay fish very considerably. There are also different methods of selling fish at the ports which are likely to go on for some time, as fish can be sold without its weight being ascertained. We find that there are further categories of sales which could not reasonably be required to be sold strictly by weight. For instance, the first buyers upon landing at the port often sell some of their purchases of kits to smaller wholesalers in the condition in which they bought them, again without having the time or facilities to verify the weight precisely. Usually, at this stage the fish is roughly packed in ice as it comes off the boat, and accurate weighing would in any case be quite impracticable. It would be wrong, and would probably confuse traders, if certain wholesale sales were required to be by weight only, while others taking place at the same quayside and in the same market were exempted.
The Government have therefore decided not to cover wholesale sales of fish at all, recognising that the general short-weight provisions in Clause 24, in spite of what the noble Lord has said, will afford protection to the wholesaler and retailer whose suppliers are in fact purporting to sell a specific weight of fish. That is particularly so if, as Lord Stonham says, most wholesalers sell by net weight now. Then, notwithstanding anything in Schedule 4, the retailer has a full and adequate defence against any short weight by reason of Clause 24. So that point does not seem to have very much in it. It is not true that all other wholesalers of food are covered. For example, wholesalers of fresh fruit and vegetables, cheese and groceries are not covered. Fish is not the only commodity. There are slightly different reasons for some of the others, but we believe that it is not practicable at present to do what the noble Lord suggests because of getting the fish to market, to the retailer and to the customer, fresh. We believe that sometimes now, in certain weather, freshness—I will not say is open to doubt, but is
654
certainly a bit difficult; and if there is any more delay we are quite certain that would happen. I am afraid that we are not prepared to accept the Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: The only practical point which the noble Lord raised against what I said—and he really did not attempt to answer the case—was that nothing should be done to hold up delivery, and the only thing whereby my Amendment could be alleged to hold up delivery would be in those minority of cases where the wholesaler does not at present charge by net weight. In the majority of cases he is already weighing, but that does not prevent him from delivering the fish quickly to market. In those other cases where they do not sell by net weight, the only extra process is weighing the fish. We have excluded in the Amendment all those ports or small fishing villages where there would be no adequate equipment for weighing. In the others, the main fishing ports, there is modern weighing equipment and no difficulty and very little delay at all.
I am bound to confess that this is no answer at all. When the noble Lord says, "We do not at this time think it is practicable to introduce a net weight ", one might ask: at what time will it be practicable to have honest dealing in matters of this kind? I do not wish to delay the Committee any further; we have a great deal to do. But I regard this as a most unsatisfactory answer, and must give notice that we shall return to it again, when I hope, having studied the arguments in this particular debate, the noble Lord will be prepared to take a different view.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Part II agreed to.
Part III [Cheese]:
9.17 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: The object of this Amendment is very clear. I wish to include foods which are composed of a great majority of cheese and minute proportions of other substances; for example, cheese and celery, cheese and tomato, and so on. Some of it is dreadful stuff, but nevertheless it is sold. But the point is that many of these articles contain very little else but cheese. I may be wrong, but it is thought that, by the terms of the Bill as now drafted, they

655
would be excluded because they would not be wholly cheese and therefore could not be so described. I should have thought that, if a commodity consisted of, say, 95 per cent. of cheese and 5 per cent. of some other commodity, then if it is right to include cheese in these provisions it would be right to include the mixed commodity. I do not think it is necessary to pursue the point; in any case, I have nothing else to say about it at this short notice. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 23, after ("cheese") and ("and any article, which, though it also contains other food, consists substantially of cheese").—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD DERWENT: I think I can give a satisfactory answer to the noble Lord—not accepting it, but explaining it. The Amendment seeks to include, in Part III of the Schedule which at present relates only to cheese, articles made substantially of cheese. That is the object of the Amendment. The point I want to put to the noble Lord is that there would be little point in extending Part III in this way. Pre-packed goods which are made substantially but not wholly of cheese, such as cheese spreads or (what I am told exists) prepared welsh rarebit, are already subject to the requirements of Part XI of the Schedule and will have to be marked with their net weight. That concerns pre-packed goods.
Sales of goods made substantially of cheese which are not pre-packed we believe to be fairly limited and specialised. We are not satisfied that it would be appropriate to require that the weight of all these must be made known to the purchaser, for these reasons: prepared foods such as cheese cake and pastry cheese-rolls may be customarily sold either by weight or by the piece, and it would not, in my view, confer any necessary protection on the customer to require that in all cases they should be sold by weight. So, pre-packed goods are already looked after, and as to this very limited number of part-cheese, non-pre-packed goods, we think that, as sonic of them are sold in other ways, it would not serve any useful purpose.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that explana-
656
tion. To take the kind of cheese that are bought wrapped up in silverfoil, one sometimes get deceived by things like that. They are wrapped up in silverfoil, and there is some honest-to-goodness cheese in it: then some frightful stuff is added, tomato or something like that—merely a taste. Is the noble Lord saying that if they are pre-packed in some way or other then such mixtures are already covered by the Bill, and that tit is only esoteric developments of this sort which are not covered?
LORD DERWENT: Yes. If they are pre-packed, genuinely pre-packed, they are covered by the Bill. If there is doubt about the pre-packing—they are just in something—they are normally, I am advised, sold by so much a piece, so the net weight need not really be marked on them. I think the number of goods which are part cheese which are sold not pre-packed and not by the piece are very limited, if they exist at all.
LORD STONHAM: I still think it would have been much better to accept the Amendment, but I do not think it is of major importance and, in view of the explanation, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEPHERD: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Peddie, I beg to move this Amendment. The object is quite simple, and I am sure that the Minister recognises it from olden days. It is that all pre-packed cheese should be sold exclusively by net weight. We on this side of the Committee hold the belief, and have held it on previous occasions, that there is no practical reason for permitting wrapper weights to be included in the weight of pre-packed cheese. The wrappers are generally of uniform size and weight. I think that if the noble Lord were to do any of his personal shopping he would discover that cheeses have a general standard of pack, with standard appearance, and that there is little to differentiate between the types of packing as between one store and another. Therefore, we feel that there is no reason whatsoever why, under this Bill, all cheeses which are pre-packed should not be clearly marked with the net weight. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 36, leave out from ("pre-packed") to ("only") in line 37.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD DERWENT: There are, in fact, reasons why this Amendment should not be accepted in the interests of the consumer, and I will explain them quite briefly. Paragraph 3 of Part III, to which the Amendment relates, requires pre-packed cheese to be marked with its net weight only if it is in a container heavier than the permitted weight specified in Table B of Part XII. The Amendment would require the net weight to be marked on all pre-packed cheese, even if it is in a lightweight wrapping within the permitted container allowance. This would be unreasonable and impracticable, as I hope to show. Many cheeses—and this is the point—unlike some other goods, are subject to unpredictable loss of weight after pre-packing, and many of the light-weight containers normally used cannot at the present day prevent this loss of weight.
It is not practicable for the packer in these circumstances to mark the cheese with a weight that will be correct at the time of sale, and the Bill provides instead that the weight of such pre-packed cheese in light-weight containers—not heavyweight—shall be made known to the customer at the time of sale. As the cheese is pre-packed, this weight to be made known must inevitably be the gross weight. I believe this is in the interests of the consumer. I would add that the weight of the Table B container which may be included in the gross weight is very small. For quantities up to 1 lb. the wrapper allowance is 4½ drams, or just over a quarter of an ounce. In all cases where wrappers above this permitted weight are used, the net weight must be marked.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Can the noble Lord tell me whether this includes grated cheese in tins?
LORD DERWENT: If pre-packed, yes.
LORD SHEPHERD: Do I gather that the Minister is accepting the Amendment?
LORD DERWENT: No, you do not.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
9.27 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved in paragraph 4 to leave out sub-paragraph (a) and insert:
"(a) prepacked soft cheeses (other than processed cheeses) sold intact as ripened and weighing not more than one pound".
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, Lord Peddie, who is flying back from Manchester in order to move this Amendment and has not yet arrived, I beg to move this Amendment. The object of this Amendment is that of clarifying an exemption, provided in paragraph 4(a), for pre-packed natural cheese which is not of the Cheddar or Cheshire type. Are soft cheeses of the Camembert type, cream and cottage cheeses intended to be exempted? If so, why should they be? It seems an extraordinary thing that the only pre-packed natural cheeses which will be caught by the clause as it stands at present are Cheddar or Cheshire type cheeses. There are a great many kinds of cheese which ought to be sold by weight, and many in fact which are, and have been for a great many years, sold by weight.
I understand that in one supermarket recently the following varieties of pre-packed cheeses, in addition to Cheddars and Cheshires, were all marked with a declaration of weight. In other words, the makers, the wholesalers or packers, found it practicable and desirable—they were not bothered by the so-called technical difficulties—to mark their cheese with a declaration of net weight without any Act of Parliament. The cheeses were Dutch Edam, White and Blue Stilton, Gorgonzola, Austrian smoked, Lancashire, Leicestershire, Double Gloucester, Wensleydale and Caerphilly. Others which are commonly sold with the weight marked when pre-packed are Derby and Dunlop. As I understand it, all these would be exempted from sale by weight when pre-packed in accordance with the terms of the Bill as it stands at present.
It seems to me that the Government in this matter, remembering our discussions two years ago, have had no regard to the effect which those discussions had on the consciences of the makers and sellers of cheese. Obviously what we then said went right home to their hearts, and they went back to their factories and warehouses and started to make

659
arrangements whereby they could be honest brokers and mark with the net weight the pre-packed cheese they were selling. The Government, being quite unconscious of this—because obviously they do not trade in supermarkets, and therefore have not observed these things—still stick to the original Cheddar and Cheshire as the only cheeses which will not be exempt. I would ask the noble Lord to look at the list I have read out and accept the Amendment; or, if he cannot do so now, to tell us that he will look at it again so as to widen this paragraph to bring it more nearly in accord with common practice among cheese manufacturers and wholesalers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 40, leave out from "say" to end of line 42 and insert the said new subparagraph.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD SHEPHERD: May I support my noble friend and appeal, if I may, to the knowledge and experience of the Minister, who before he took on this post was connected with trade and industry? I am sure that he will recognise that, particularly in the distributing trades, considerable advances have taken place. Therefore when we look at legislation before us we should not think merely of what was in the past and is to-day in our stores, but, realising that this Bill will remain on the Statute Book for perhaps 20 or 30 years without any amendment, should think of the trends that will take place in the distributing trade in future. I wish that my noble friend Lord Sainsbury could have been here this evening, because he has probably a greater experience than any of us in the distribution of food.
One of the things I have noticed is that customers to-day more and more wish to buy pre-packed foods. The Bill mentions only Cheshire and Cheddar, the popular cheeses before the war; but if we look into Sainsbury's, or any other big store, we find a great variety of cheeses being sold. As well as the names that have been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Stonham, there is Lancashire cheese, which, it seems to me, would be excluded from the provisions of paragraph 4.
When the noble Lord comes to put his case for paragraph 4 remaining, he will
660
have to make a case to include all these other types of cheese. If the noble Lord goes to the Continent he will find that, in order to meet the requirements of customers, all cheeses are sold by net weight. I am thinking of Holland and Switzerland in particular. These countries are able to meet all the problems that seem to bedevil noble Lords opposite and are able to sell not only cheese, but other varieties of food as well, pre-packed by net weight. We should not think only of Cheddar and Cheshire cheeses, as the main cheeses that are bought in the stores. We should consider the wide variety of the purchases that are being made, and increasingly (I hope the noble Lord will accept this) in net weight form. It seems to me that this is the trend, and if there is to be consumer, protection, then that type of cheese which other manufacturers in other countries are able to have, with the provision of net weight, should be obtainable in this country.
LORD DERWENT: This is a technical question. I would say straight away, for those who have not lived with cheeses, that pre-packed cheeses have a net weight, but it can be extremely misleading, as I will go on to show. As a general rule for instance, in France all pre-packed goods require to have net weight or volume on them; but they have not got over the difficulty about cheese. The net weight has to go on, because all goods are covered; but it does not give a true picture.
The effect of this Amendment would be to bring within the requirements of Part III a wider range of pre-packed cheese. As the noble Lord has said, at the moment the pre-packed requirement applies only to Cheddar, Cheshire and processed cheese. The Amendment would bring in all other pre-packed bard pressed cheeses, blue cheeses, and soft cheeses (except whole soft cheeses, such as Camembert, up to 1 lb.). Part III already covers all cheese sold loose, and the great bulk as a percentage of pre-packed cheese is already covered in these cheeses of Cheddar, Cheshire and so on. Cheddar, Cheshire and processed cheese account for about 80 per cent. of the trade. So we are talking about 20 per cent. For pre-packed cheese the Bill represents a major extension of existing

661
law which at present requires no pre-packed cheese, other than cheese spreads, to be marked. We think that to go further at this moment would raise considerable difficulties.
The cheese exempted includes a great many different varieties, as the noble Lord said, not one of which by itself accounts for more than 2½ per cent. of the total consumption. So we are not dealing with the bulk of the trade here.
LORD SHEPHERD: But if the principle is right, the percentage does not matter.
LORD DERWENT: There are serious practical problems about extending the requirements of the Bill to many of these cases. For example, weight losses from evaporation or "throwing" moisture, which occur even when these cheeses are packed in heavy containers, which some of them are for protection, make it impracticable to mark the net weight on the container. A number of cheeses, both home produced and Continental, are subject to very pronounced unpredictable losses of weight during distribution. Such losses may arise not only from evaporation in the normal sense, but also from "throwing" of moisture in certain conditions of heat or lack of humidity. The loss of weight varies considerably, and if you put on the net weight on packing of cheeses which have been subject to different temperatures there will be different weights when you come to sell and they will be something quite absurdly different from what they were when they started, even if they started at the same packed weight.
LORD LATHAM: Ought not the consumer to know that?
LORD DERWENT: We have considered this problem very carefully, and we think that they can be weighed at the time of sale, but if you put on the weight at the time of packing it is definitely misleading. I would say that at this present moment containers are being developed, many of them not yet with great success. Even the heavy containers, as I have said, have not stopped this "throwing" of moisture, as I call it; it is not only evaporation. We have power under Clause 21 to bring in other varieties if this were to be shown to be practicable or desirable. At the moment we cover 80
662
per cent. of the trade. We feel that most of the rest of the trade, if we mark it, will be misleading.
LORD LATHAM: I suppose the noble Lord will agree that what his argument amounts to is that the consumer should bear the cost of the evaporation, humidity shrinkage, or whatever it may be.
LORD DERWENT: Whether it is packed with the net weight on it or not, he will still bear the effect of the evaporation.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Would the noble Lord agree that I was right about hard Parmesan cheeses? When I asked the noble Lord whether these would be included, he said they would. I listened very carefully, and he said that because of the nature of the container being tin they would not be marked.
LORD DERWENT: We were talking about the previous Amendment which was dealing with the weight of the packing. We were not on this Amendment. On the previous Amendment, it depended on how the noble Lady's Parmesan was packed.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The noble Lord, who is obviously an authority on cheese, should know that grated Parmesan cheese is always packed in a tin.
LORD DERWENT: That is not so nowadays. Sometimes it is in cellophane packets.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Would the noble Lord tell me where I can get some in cellophane packets?
LORD DERWENT: I will try to bring some to the House for the noble Lady.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord was drawing our attention to the problem of Continental cheeses. He said there was a considerable difficulty which arose from Continental cheese.
LORD DERWENT: Not only Continental.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am speaking of Continental cheeses which are sold on the Continent by net weight. I think the noble Lord is suggesting, with all the difficulties he has explained to the Committee, that on the Continent, where the

663
cheese is stamped with the net weight, the customer does not get the net weight content. Is that what he is saying?
LORD DERWENT: The customer may not get the net weight content.
LORD SHEPHERD: This is a serious matter, because here, under the Board of Trade, we are receiving imports of cheeses in pre-packed cartons with a net weight clearly stamped. Are we to understand that these cartons are coming in and being sold to the customer with these pre-packed marks, and the Government are saying that it is possible that the public are being misled. Are the Board of Trade doing nothing to see that those particular marks are dealt with before those imported cheeses are sold?
LORD AMPTHILL: If the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is referring, under "pre-packed cheese", to things like Brie and Camembert, I would point out that you do not buy them by weight, whether in France or England. You open the lid and have a good prod. If it is in good condition, you buy it.
LORD DERWENT: Of course my noble friend is right. We are trying to protect those who want to be protected. I think the answer, quite frankly, is this. In practically all Continental countries the tolerances which are allowed in net weight are very wide indeed, and here they are not allowed.
LORD SHEPHERD: In other words, the noble Lord is saying that these figures mean just nothing.
LORD DERWENT: The tolerances are greater and they mean something on the Continent, but it is perfectly true that they may well mislead in this country.
LORD STONHAM: I think this has been an extremely useful discussion, which I, for one, want to examine much more closely. I think it is one of those cases in the Bill where a different form of marking of net weight would be advisable. The best thing we could do now—because we do not want to prolong the discussion indefinitely—is to say that we will look at this matter again and probably come forward on the Report stage with different Amendments in the light of what the noble Lord has said. With that, I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Part III agreed to.
9.44 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I wonder whether I could ask the Government what their intentions are with regard to continuing the sitting on this particular Bill. We have dealt with—and we have not wasted any time, I know the noble Lord will agree—27 Amendments in five working hours, excluding the dinner adjournment. There are 27 more Amendments to deal with. At the same rate of progress we shall be here until half-past two in the morning. I have a vested interest in the matter, because I have to start a debate when these proceedings finish. Leaving that aside, I do not think we can give full and proper consideration to the Committee stage of this Bill for a further five hours. This is an important Bill. I would therefore ask the noble Lord what the Government's intentions are in the matter. I do not want to have to move that the House resume. I should like to come to a reasonable agreement on this point. If he cannot give me an answer immediately I hope that he will do so within the next half-an-hour.
LORD DERWENT: I do not think that these Amendments are going to take as long as the earlier ones. If the noble Lord looks at the Amendments, I think he will find that we shall finish in a reasonable time.
LORD STONHAM: I am glad that the noble Lord is so hopeful, but the next series of Amendments on bread are extremely important ones, and I am sure that these will take at least half-an-hour unless the noble Lord likes to shorten the proceedings by getting up and saying that he is going to accept the Amendments.
LORD DERWENT: In so far as the next Amendment is concerned, if I may be allowed to say so, if someone will move it very shortly I may be able to help.
Part IV [Bread]:
9.47 p.m.
LORD CROOK LORD CROOK moved, in paragraph 1, to leave out sub-paragraph (c), and to substitute:
"(c) the expression 'whole loaf' includes a sliced loaf and any prepacked bread shall be deemed to be a whole loaf unless—

665

(i) it is made up in one of the following quantities, that is to say, twelve ounces, one pound, one and a half pounds, or a multiple of one pound, and

(ii) the container is marked with an indication of quantity by net weight."

The noble Lord said: I think that one should move Amendment No. 49 together with Nos. 50 and 51. The noble Lord on the other side puts me in a little difficulty. If I shorten what I have to say and do not put the proper case and we thereby do not get what we want, I shall have to come back afterwards to rebut anything the noble Lord says if he is not good enough to us. I think I can sum it up in this way. We have no desire to change the broad purpose of Part IV. We want to clarify requirements by eliminating practical uncertainties in the requirements as they are now drafted. What the Amendment seeks to do is to set down a sharp and clear statutory definition between the ordinary loaf baked whole and sold whole, and, on the other hand, pre-packed bread. I cannot help thinking that there are tremendous difficulties here, particularly for the inspector who has to be charged with the job of enforcement. For that matter, I think there are difficulties for the purchaser.
Had the noble Lord not indicated that there was quite a chance he would accept these Amendments if I were brief, I should have developed these points, particularly with regard to the use of sliced bread and the difficulties of knowing whether when one slice is removed one is in possession of a whole loaf or not a whole loaf; whether it is to be subjected to the test which the inspectors have, and the like. I am, however, quite happy—if the noble Lord is likely to meet this series of Amendments and to accept something we thought from the beginning was helpful to the Government, to the weights and measures authorities and the inspectors—to say that I am prepared to move and then sit down, in the knowledge that, having moved No. 49, if I do not get what we want, I shall move Nos. 50 and 51 at considerable length. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, leave out line 8 and insert—
("(c) the expression 'whole loaf' includes a sliced loaf and any prepacked bread shall be deemed to be a whole loaf unless—
666

(i) it ins made up in one of the following quantities, that is to say, twelve ounces, one pound, one and a half pounds, or a multiple of one pound, and

(ii) the container is marked with an indication of quantity by net weight.").—(Lord Crook.)

LORD DERWENT: I hope I did not mislead the noble Lord into thinking that I was going to accept. I am going to ask if he will withdraw the Amendments and let me reconsider part of them, and the other parts I hope I shall be able to persuade him do not need reconsideration. But he can speak again; and we may shorten it by this process. I will take these three Amendments together, since they are inter-connected. Their object is twofold. First, they seek to change the standard weight of whole loaves from the 14 oz. or a multiple thereof provided in the Bill, to 1 lb. or a multiple thereof. Secondly, they would require sliced bread to be pre-packed in a range of specified sizes.
May I first deal—and I hope the noble Lord will give way on this particular point—with the question of the size of a normal loaf. The 14-oz. size for a normal "small" loaf and the 28-oz. size for a "large" loaf provided in the Bill is the same as in the present law. It has been in operation now since 1946, and I think the trade and the public find it a convenient size. To require it to be changed back to the pre-1946 size of 1 lb., et cetera, would not only impose a change from a size to which everyone has become long accustomed but would force the bakers to change their equipment at a substantial cost. No one, presumably, would expect a baker to sell a 16-oz. loaf for the same price as a 14-oz. one. So that the effect of the Amendment would be to disorganise the baking trade in order to give the consumer a slightly larger loaf than she is used to for a slightly higher price. From that point of view, I do not see any merit in it.
When we come to the second point, sliced bread, I think the noble Lord has raised an important point, and we have some sympathy with the aim of his Amendments, in so far as they seek to require pre-packed sliced bread to be subject to the same requirements as ordinary whole loaves. On this basis I am prepared to reconsider the drafting of Part IV to deal with this point. But I do not think it would be right to

667
allow bread to be pre-packed in quantities different from those required for the unpre-packed whole loaves. The drafting would not do that. On the Amendment to omit lines 9 and 10, where the Bill provides that a commodity is to be sold by net weight it is unnecessary to provide specifically in the Schedule that the quantity shall be brought to the notice of the buyer, since that is implied in the requirement to sell by net weight. So the position is that the last Amendment is not necessary. On the first one, I hope that the noble Lord will agree, that it would perhaps be a retrograde step to alter the size of an ordinary loaf. On the question of pre-packed loaves we will reconsider the drafting to meet the point the noble Lord has raised.
LORD LINDGREN: Before my noble friend Lord Crook speaks again, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, could tell us how, in fact, at the present time the housewife knows that she is getting the value in weight in the loaf when delivered or bought over the counter. It is never weighed. I am old enough—and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Derwent is also—to remember the time when we went to buy a loaf and we got makeweight with it. If in the old days it was completely impossible for the baker to determine the weight of the bread, how is it possible to determine the actual weight of the bread when it is baked to-day? I know that we have had scientific development, but that scientific development has not overcome all the factors of humidity and the rest of it. In the olden days the question of makeweight often used to be a sizeable factor when it came to getting the extra slice—and, so far as I was concerned, the extra slice was quite a factor of sustenance in those days. Can the noble Lord tell us how one determines the weight; that if it is supposed to be 14 oz., in fact it is?
LORD DERWENT: I am afraid that I am not a baker and not technical enough to tell the noble Lord. There is a certain tolerance allowed, which is very small, and bakers and their products are repeatedly inspected, and I think I am right in saying that the actual retailer is inspected. Apart from that, I am afraid that, without due notice,
668
I cannot tell the noble Lord the actual method of seeing that a loaf is the proper weight. I will write to the noble Lord if he likes, but I am not expert enough to tell him.
LORD CROOK: I thank the noble Lord for his statement. I think we have reasonably in a few minutes done something that might have taken a long time. I could not have developed the case in less than a quarter of an hour. I will withdraw the Amendment in the hope that we can get agreement on this point. I think that on the question of sliced loaves we are apparently together. It must not be taken that I am in agreement with everything the noble Lord said. I well remember the change from the 1 lb. loaf to the 14 oz. loaf, which was a war legacy. I see the point about multiples of 14 oz. and 16 oz. and so on. We shall have a chance on Report to come back to pre-packed goods, and we may be able to come back to something agreed between the noble Lord on behalf of the Government and those on this side. For that reason I shall be happy to withdraw No. 49 immediately and Nos. 50 and 51 I shall not move.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Part IV agreed to.
Part V agreed to.
Part VI [Intoxicating liquor]:
9.55 p.m.
LORD CROOK LORD CROOK moved to add to paragraph 2:
"and
(c) In the case of beer if a notice is displayed indicating the original gravity".
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I will move Amendment No. 53 and would link with it Amendment No. 57, once again in order to save your Lordships' time. I feel very much in the position of one concerned with a slightly altered version of the old poem, in that I am here with bread and beer and not with bread and wine. I consider that in regard to beer the Amendment I move is one of considerable importance to the public as a whole, and one which has been the subject of agitation over a considerable period of years by those connected with working-class clubs. Therefore, if I have to keep your Lordships for a few moments it is because of past history of over thirty

669
years of agitation, to try to get the condition and price of beer where for instance, members of the Club and Institute Union think it should be.
The Club and Institute Union, who are persons responsible for our putting down this Amendment, have throughout the country 3,560 bona fide membership clubs of working people, and their registered membership as at the beginning of this year was over 2,425,000. They have been pressing for legislation, by having Questions asked in the House, by getting private Members' Motions moved, and by propaganda among many of us for some thirty years. The propaganda has been for the compulsory disclosure by brewers of the original gravity of the beers they sell. This is not a new problem. I may perhaps remind your Lordships that as long ago as 1887 the Local Government Board Report said:
"In the present state of the law as regard the constituents of beer, it is difficult for an analyst to report that a given sample of beer has been sold as beer of a particular brand, and thus afford any means of comparison."
I am not so much concerned to-day with whether beer has been watered. I do not believe it has to be watered now. I believe, in the way that I propose to try to show your Lordships, that the water is there originally because there is in fact no guarantee of the quality of beer by gravity in this country.
For those of your Lordships who have not tried to see what happens in the making of beer, may I say that the alcoholic strength depends on two things: first, the original proportion of solids to water; and, second, how far those solids are allowed to ferment. If the fermentation is checked at an early stage the beer created may have a strong taste—it may have plenty of what is called "body", and yet it may contain far less alcohol than otherwise would be the case. Indeed, I am told by experienced beer drinkers that they have great difficulty in determining the gravity of the beer that they are drinking. But these regular drinkers of this great English drink in the great English places, the clubs and the pubs, ought to know what it is that they are going to get; and they should know not only for ordinary reasons of quality, but for tax reasons. If every time they order a pint of beer they are going to provide a large quantity of the revenue
670
that will stop your income tax and mine being pushed up a bit more, they should at least know to what extent they are doing it.
Your Lordships will probably know, if you have followed the Budget statements at any time over the years, that gravity is measured in degrees and that tax is paid on degrees. Under 1016 degrees (which is normally called a sixteenth) there is no tax payable at all, but on beers from 1016 to 1030 degrees (which is the standard) the standard taxation under the current Budgetary provisions is £5 11s. 9½d.; and on every extra degree 6s. 7½d. is payable. Therefore, the price paid for beer is so substantially related to the original gravity that it is an important thing for consideration.
Nothing of this kind would matter if anyone who knew anything about the subject in the last thirty years had any feeling of reliance in regard to the production which has gone on in the breweries, but the reports of chief inspectors of weights and measures over the years, based on samples of beer which they have taken, have given no encouragement to anybody to believe that this commodity was of a given strength or that they were getting a square deal. Had the hour not been so late I should have read in some detail from a number of the reports of chief inspectors of weights and measures throughout the country in order to try to convince your Lordships. But I propose merely to give a few samples of the kind of thing one can expect in this field.
The Chief Inspector in Kent in recent years referred to bitter beer sold at a gravity of 1029·4 to 1038·9—which is a big range—and all that bitter beer cost the same price, notwithstanding the difference: 6s. 7½d. a degree. In regard to mild beer in the County of Kent the variety ranged from 1028 to 1032·4 degrees. There again the prices were the same. I would go beyond asking your Lordships to note that the prices were the same for the same beers, and would point out that mild beer at 1032 degrees was in fact more expensive than bitter beer at only 1029. In Hull the weights and measures inspectors discovered that two samples of mild of the same price had no less than 2·5 degrees

671
of difference, and in the two samples of mild beer more than 3 degrees of difference. In one pub one sample of bitter at 1s. 4½d. was 4 degrees less than the bitter sold in the same bar, though with a different name, at 1s. 3d.
In Northumberland brown ales have shown as much as 20 degrees variety among them, and stout as much as 13 degrees. Those of your Lordships who go into the North Country, where beer means a great deal to a large number of working people—and the noble Lord who is to reply, with his great knowledge of his own Yorkshire and further North, will know how right this is—know that in two wars we even got into the position of having strikes by men about the gravity of their beer. Indeed, I make no apology for reminding your Lordships, who may think that any control of the gravity of beer in an Act of Parliament is something foreign to this country, that one of the pieces of emergency legislation in 1916 was to control the content and gravity of beer. That was done on two grounds: one was with regard to the amount of the nation's foodstuffs that could be committed to beer; and the other was the giving of a standard product to munition workers and the like. But it is significant that the Government thought it good to keep that going until 1924 when, under the pressure of certain groups of people, legislation was withdrawn.
Up in the North country, where this question was so difficult, and is so difficult, the noble Lord the Minister who is to reply will know that "Best Scotch" up there does not mean the drink of which noble Lords who come from North of the Tweed think, but beer. The best account one can give of this deviation from quality is shown by a report from up there that the "Best Scotch" marketed by some companies is of a lower gravity than the ordinary beer of other brewers. One famous brewer of the North, when asked to explain by the public analyst—and I take this from the public analyst's report—said that his company could not produce the beer as cheaply as the larger concerns, so the lower gravity beer was marketed at the same price as the higher gravity beers sold by other companies. Money, he explained, was thus saved on materials, and in addition they got a rake-off on the tax that they did not have
672
to pay. It is only the late hour that stops my turning the 1029 gravity into sitting down at 10.29 p.m. But benefiting from the approach that the noble Lord made on the recent Amendment, I sit down in the belief that this is such a reasonable attempt to help the Government that they cannot help falling over themselves to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 12, at end insert ("and
(c) in the case of beer if a notice is displayed indicating the original gravity").(Lord Crook.)
LORD LINDGREN: I do not know whether it is necessary to declare an interest, but I have one, in fact, as beer is my beverage. If I may be entirely out of order, I have a complaint that I can get a pint of beer with my lunch in your Lordships' Dining Room, but when it comes to a late Sitting and we have dinner, we are denied a pint of beer. As a beer drinker, I am interested, so far as I can be, in getting value for the money that I spend on it. I am reminded of the lawyer who, in a case before a learned judge who asked what beer was, said that it was a combination of water, science and tax, and the greatest part of it was tax.
When I was a Member in another place, the then Member for Hornchurch had quite a hobby of baiting the brewers, and we enjoyed his little exercises in regard to the activities of brewers in all sorts of ways. What I am concerned about is whether the setting of the original gravity will be any help at all to a normal beer drinker like myself, in relation to price. Because at that time, and largely arising from the statements and the activities of the then Member for Horn-church, when visiting a brewery in my constituency in Northamptonshire the head brewer said—and perhaps we can use this as a little piece of education at this time of night—that the original gravity on which tax is paid has no relationship to what I believe he called the "present gravity" when the beer is sold. In fact, after the original gravity was determined, which is before fermentation (or, at least, I understood him so), there is a degree of processing which has quite an effect upon the palate and upon the character of the beer. The final product, which that brewer, as I understood it, referred to as "present gravity", had

673
no relationship whatever to original gravity.
At that time the then Member for Hornchurch was in fact rather pressing in regard to original gravity, and it was said then by this brewer, who certainly knew his trade with regard to brewing, that the publicising of the original gravity, which of course has a very great reflection on the ultimate price because it is upon that that the tax is paid, would not necessarily help and might in fact be misleading so far as the normal consumer of beer is concerned. Therefore, while I want to know, if I can, that I am getting value for money, perhaps either my noble friend Lord Crook or the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, can tell us whether in fact the naming of the original gravity would give any protection or indication to the consumer of the beer of the actual value in so far as that commodity is concerned.
10.12 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: The effect of these two Amendments would be, first, to require that where draught beer is sold for consumption on the premises a statement in writing of the original gravity must be displayed for the information of purchasers; and, secondly, to require bottled and canned beer to be marked with an indication of its original gravity. The expression "gravity" in Section 171 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, is defined as meaning the ratio of the weight of a volume of liquid to the weight of an equal volume of distilled water at 60 degrees Fahrenheit. In other words, it means the specific gravity of the liquid. "Original gravity" means the gravity before fermentation has taken place—and those last few words apply to the beer and not the drinker. Clearly this is a measure of quality and not of quantity, and is therefore outside the scope of this Bill, which deals with quantity. It was for this reason that a similar Amendment in another place was ruled out of order. This is not a suitable place for this Amendment, and I ask the Committee to reject it.
LORD STONHAM: Allowing for the force of the noble Lord's argument about its being outside the scope of this Bill, gravity and, as he said, strength must imply weight, and I therefore think he has dismissed it in a somewhat cavalier fashion, particularly after the
674
expertise displayed by my two noble friends, who showed such a wealth of knowledge and experience in these matters. But they are quite right in saying that this is a matter which has very considerable concern. We shall be dealing in a few minutes' time with the question of the measures of spirits provided by pubs, and I would have said that there are probably ten men concerned with the gravity of beer to every one who is concerned with the measure of spirits.
I wonder whether the Government are right to dismiss this in this way. My noble friend Lord Crook said that it was difficult to know what the gravity was, but the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has explained that the gravity is a measure of strength and quality; and that is exactly what the people who drink beer as a hobby have in mind. The noble Lord will remember the story of one of the ladies from his part of the country who had, in company with a friend, visited a strange district and sampled the beer. After about an hour his friend asked him what he thought of the beer. He said, "I really don't know, but I shall be damn glad when I've had enough".
These people do take these things seriously, and the question I want to put to the noble Lord is: if in a Bill which deals with weights we cannot deal with gravity of beer, a very important subject, under what measure can we deal with it, considering this has been a matter of acute controversial arguments, not only among customers but from the customer to the publican for very many years? We have sought to bring the matter up on this Schedule in order to get a decision from the Government, and we should like a little help from the noble Lord.
LORD DERWENT: We cannot really bring in all the matters of controversy just because they are matters of controversy. This is a question of quality. Other measures deal with short weight of beer or whether the wrong tankard is used as a measure, but this is a measure of quality. This is not the appropriate Bill, and I do not think I am the appropriate Minister to advise on legislation about quality.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Does the noble Lord visualise every "olde worlde"

675
pub, the beams of which we admire so much, covered not only with notices of the essential amenities of the particular hotel but also with notices stating the specific gravity of every kind of beer sold by the particular hotel?
LORD CROOK: I am not prepared to start an argument about the kind of specific gravity I should like in the beer I drink, but I am prepared to deal with what the Minister said, because clearly he is trying to put up a new variant of the argumentation put up in Parliament over the last thirty years. On this occasion perhaps he is trying to take the place of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Whatever the noble Lord may say, my statement is completely accurate. The method of original taxation of the beer of this country is on the original gravity of beer. This translation by Ministers and by opponents of this kind of thing in another place has always been related to the attempt to show that the specific gravity, the original gravity, was merely part of the qualification of the beer. In fact I have some of the stuff of the brilliant arguments of the Brewers' Association about this over the past. It was part of the quality depending on factors, of which the strength referred to is only one, such as flavour; palatefulness—a wonderful word: do not ask me to take responsibility for it; blend; flavour of malt and hops, natural raw materials which are never uniform from year to year or between farm and farm; head retention (this does not mean what your Lordships may think—keeping your head—it is just to keep a head on top to make it possible to make a little extra money); briskness; brightness, and so forth; and, for certain beers, hops of special quality, pick of the malting barley or protracted treatment of barley malt may be needed. Nobody denies that all those things are there and it is for the buyer to make his choice of quality.
I am attempting to do here what my noble friends have tried to do over a period of years: to secure the kind of thing we had thought Her Majesty's Government were trying to secure in this measure and in other measures—that is, a square and fair deal for the working people of this country. If I put my argument to-day on no higher plane than that, I should be putting it on a very
676
good one. You nearly got into trouble, very seriously, in two wars, on this. In fact, there were strikes and the then Prime Minister, who has just announced that he is giving up Parliament shortly, to our regret, with my friend Ernest Bevin, then Minister of Labour, had to deal with a firm hand with the troubles that came from lack of beer up on the North-East coast. These are real issues where working people are concerned. It is simple for us, who have no bigger grouse than that we pay a penny more in this House than in the other and cannot get beer with our dinner but only with lunch. But to working men this is one of their relaxations and it is a serious issue. I press the Government not to keep on sitting on the working people with this kind of argument.
LORD DERWENT: May I say that I agree with 70 per cent., possibly 75 per cent., of what the noble Lord says, but this is not the Bill for this Amendment.
LORD CROOK: Then may I ask the noble Lord two things? Could he tell me, in view of our lack of success over the past thirty years, whether the Government could offer any guidance on what kind of Bill would be appropriate to receive this and whether, in the absence of any provision in this Bill, the Government will take steps to introduce an appropriate measure?
LORD DERWENT: I do not think that the legislation is yet drafted. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to try to draft it privately.
LORD CROOK: I would rather try draught beer. May I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.22 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in paragraph 3(a), after "one quarter" to insert "and". The noble Lord said: I hope it will meet your Lordships' convenience if I deal with Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 together. These two Amendments would have the effect of allowing gin, rum, vodka and whisky to be sold in nips only of 1/4th or 1/5th of a gill, instead of three different measures including 1/6th. This is a serious and I think useful Amendment which, if accepted, will make things much better

677
and much simpler for everyone concerned. I remember when we discussed this two years ago—it certainly will be within the recollection of the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, who I am glad is going to help us again on this to-night—the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said that in Scotland they regard 1/6th of a gill as merely a dirty glass. That is what the Government wish to inflict on Englishmen—a dirty glass. In Scotland, they firmly adhere to their quarter of a gill.
I understand that their adherence to this is weakening and at times a lesser measure is accepted, and if that movement had gone any farther than it has my Amendment would have been to have only one measure, namely, 1/5th of a gill, in all licensed establishments in the United Kingdom. But I have limited the Amendment so as to exclude 1/6th and therefore leave the Scots to have their quarter of a gill, if they wish, and people in England and presumably in Wales to have 1/5th, though the publican has to choose which of the two he will have.
The practical case for this Amendment rests on the fact that there is little discernible difference between the two measures, one-fifth and one-sixth. This is a matter of importance to the customers, and of particular importance to the enforcement officers, the weights and measures inspectorate. One-quarter gill equals 1¼ fluid ounces; one-fifth equals 1 fluid ounce, and one-sixth equals 0·83 of a fluid ounce. The difference between 1 and 0·83 is very small. I think the matter would be difficult of enforcement, and it seems to me to be foolish to have this multiplicity. It gives an opportunity to some proprietors, perhaps less generous and less scrupulous than others, to inflict the smallest measure on their customers, and probably overcharge for it.
The most important point, I believe, is the question of enforcement, because we are going to throw a great deal of excess work on the weights and measures inspectors. It seems to me that it would be much more sensible just to have the one-quarter and one-fifth measures, and allow the licensee to choose between those two. It seems to me that there is no real justification for permitting the three-quantity basis for the sale of these
678
liquors. I hope that the Government will regard this as a sensible and useful Amendment and accept it, and so reduce the alternative to two measures. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 19, after ("one quarter") insert ("and").—(Lord Stonham.)
10.27 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: I do not think that difficulties of enforcement are really going to exist. The point at issue is this: that different measures are commonly used for these spirits—and, incidentally, we are talking about gin, rum, vodka and whisky—
LORD STONHAM: And vodka.
LORD DERWENT: Vodka is included nowadays, yes. But different measures are commonly used for these spirits in different parts of the country, and one sixth of a gill, which the noble Lord does not like, is commonly used in the South of England. The Government do not think it would be right to force customers to change their habits merely for the sake of uniformity. We are reducing the number of measures to the three most commonly used, and to go further than this at present, as the Amendment proposes, would force customers in many areas to have more than they want, at a higher price than they may be willing to pay, and, what is perhaps more important, higher than they are accustomed to paying. Obviously, if sellers of spirits had to dispense a larger measure than they do now—which is what the Amendment would in many cases require—the price would go up.
On the other hand, if local customs should change and one measure only should become accepted—supposing the South of England gave up using one-sixth of gill—then the President of the Board of Trade has power to amend the Schedule by order. I suggest that that is how it ought to be left at the moment. It really is dictating too much to people to say to them that their area has always used one-sixth of a gill, but that they will be the same as Yorkshire and must use one-fifth. But should that not become an issue at a later date, and should uniformity be required because people are not using one of the measures, we can easily make the order.
LORD CROOK: I am bound to say that the Minister's advisers have not given him very accurate advice. On what he has been saying two or three ways round he is quite wrong. He is suggesting that this kind of measure is now commonly in use in the South of England. He is also suggesting that if we do what is set out in the Amendment we are imposing a dictation. I would reply that if we are imposing a dictation it is just a tiny bit more than the Government are going to do in the Bill.
I want to give the advice to the noble Lord that he has not been given by those who have advised him about what is the present position in the service of drinks in this great Metropolis. Drinks are not served in this Metropolis at the moment by this kind of measure at all. The kind of measure which the noble Lord has claimed is common, is not, in fact, common. There will be changes in measure and in price all over London immediately this Bill becomes law. At the moment, these spirits, particularly whisky, are sold by measures called optics, manipulated by a flick of the finger, from the bottle. You can buy those optics—I will take the noble Lord to look at them if he has never seen them—to give anything from 32 to 21 drinks out of a bottle. It depends entirely upon the nature of the place to which you go—and not always the price you want to pay—and your ability to make your own judgment, what it is you will get.
If you go into some of the night clubs to which some Members of your, Lordships' House have been, and I have always wanted to go, you will know that inside the optics it is possible to put a little piece of glass, so that even if you think you are getting a 21 optic the piece of glass in the middle is giving you 28. I am surprised that the noble Lord was not told this, because it is one of the commonest scandals that has been known to anybody who has tried to deal with this kind of thing, as I have, over a period of time. I would ask the noble Lord to believe that this may be just that little bit more dictation, but so small that we express our concern, as well as our surprise and pleasure, that the Government have gone as far as they have.
LORD DERWENT: I am glad that I have been able to please the noble Lord
680
with one matter. When this Bill is in force the practice of which he complains will be absolutely, without a peradventure, illegal.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved to add to Part VI, paragraph 3:
"and nothing in this paragraph shall make unlawful the sale at the express request of the buyer of any mixture of liquids containing any of the liquors aforesaid in a quantity not otherwise permitted by this paragraph."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment, I am sure, will readily commend itself to your Lordships. The purpose of it is to permit the sale of draught spirits in mixtures in quantities other than those specified in the Schedule where the buyer expressly so requests. As at present drafted, the Schedule permits the sale of whisky, gin, rum and vodka only, as we have been discussing, in quantities of a quarter gill, a fifth of a gill or a sixth of a gill or multiples thereof, except where the spirit forms part of a mixture of three or more liquids.
In discussion in another place, it was suggested that this requirement was too restrictive, since in the case of certain mixtures of two liquids, the customer would be unable to get the drink that he or she wanted. It was pointed out that some people prefer their gin and vermouth, or their gin and Dubonnet, with less than the full measure of gin.
Other, less abstemious, gentlemen require it with a full measure of gin. They might, for example, want two-thirds vermouth to one third gin—or they might want Dubonnet with only a dash of gin. In either case, the obligation on the seller to give the full measure of gin could result in a drink which was larger, or contained more spirit, than the customer wanted. Again, another person might want a particular amount of gin with his vermouth that was larger than the measure normally provided by the bar. There was general support in another place for an Amendment to deal with this problem by allowing the sale of a mixture containing a different quantity of spirit from the measures specified in the Schedule where the buyer expressly demanded it. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Science could not accept that particular Amendment, but he promised to

681
consider it and introduce into this House a suitable Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 31, at end insert the said words.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Part VI agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: I wonder whether noble Lords would agree that this is a suitable moment to break off? May I also make the announcement that we shall continue with this, and hope to finish the Committee stage, after the debate on the Radcliffe Report to-morrow.
682
I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

CORN RENTS BILL
10.35 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

THE CASE OF KENNETH EDWARD HOLMES
10.37 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM rose to call attention to the Petition of Kenneth Edward Holmes ordered to lie on the Table on March 7 last and to ask Her Majesty's Government—

(1) whether they will make available for inspection the results of the previous medical examinations of Mr. Holmes;

(2) whether they will authorise an independent medical examination of Mr. Holmes;

(3) whether they will now release Mr. Holmes.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, even though the hour is late and we have had a long day, I am raising this Question tonight, first to ask justice for a criminal and, second, to draw attention to the much wider implications of the case, because, as I will show, the rights of the subject and civil liberties have been withheld in a manner which has shocked members of the legal profession who have knowledge of this case.
The man concerned is Kenneth Holmes, now aged 40, who for the last eight years of his life has been a prisoner at Dartmoor. When he was thirteen he was convicted of shopbreaking and arson and sent to an approved school. At the age of 16 he was again sent to an approved school on conviction for attempted shop-breaking and malicious wounding. In July, 1941, he enlisted in the Royal Air Force and was called up in April, 1942. He was discharged in July, 1945, and I have his discharge certificate here. It records that his conduct on discharge was "good" and the top right-hand corner of the discharge is still attached to it. It is only cut off if an airman is discharged with a bad character. But most important, however, is the statement on the certificate
"This airman has been accepted for air crew and has been awaiting training as an air gunner."
I would mention that this is important because if there had been anything psychologically wrong he would not have been accepted as air crew because the
684
medical conditions for acceptance are extremely stringent.
In 1947 this man was convicted of shopbreaking and sentenced to four years' imprisonment, but, at the same time, he was found guilty but insane of arson and sent to Broadmoor. Two years later he was released and the remainder of his sentence was remitted; and I submit that he would not have been so released if there had been any doubt about his mental condition. During the next six years he was employed by, and eventually obtained a controlling interest in, a firm of surgical instrument makers and was mainly responsible for the direction of the company. He employed eighteen people and had a personal income of some £2,000 a year. During this period he married.
However, in February, 1955, he was convicted of the rape of an 11-year-old girl and was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment, in my view a proper, though perhaps severe, sentence for an abominable crime. I should, however, say that Holmes has persistently denied that he was guilty as charged and during the eight years he has tried by every possible means to obtain evidence which he claims will establish his innocence. These efforts have been just as persistently frustrated by the Home Office. It is, however, essential to record that Mr. Justice Byrne, after reading the report by the Leeds Prison Medical Officer stated that Holmes had—and I quote:
"no history of any recurrence of mental trouble since he left prison in 1949 and that in the doctor's opinion he was of sound mind and fully responsible for his actions."
This was in February, 1955. No evidence to the contrary has ever been given, and the Prison Commissioners obviously have no doubt of his sanity, because he was sent to Dartmoor and has remained there ever since.
In 1957 my right honourable friend Mr. Chuter Ede, a former Home Secretary, who took up the case, was informed in writing by the Home Secretary that there was no question but that Holmes was sane, and I myself was given a similar Answer when I raised the matter in 1958. Holmes was refused leave to appeal against conviction but was granted leave to appeal against sentence. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, then Lord Chief Justice, in

685
giving judgment, referred to the conviction for malicious wounding when Holmes was a boy of 16 and the conviction in 1947 when he was found insane and sent to Broadmoor. Lord Goddard declared, despite the evidence to the contrary given at Holmes' trial, that—and I quote:
"he must be to some degree mentally unstable and is a deadly menace".
He altered the sentence of ten years to one which left it entirely
"in the discretion of the Home Secretary when the man is fit to be released,"—
in other words a life sentence. The noble Lord added:
"If he "—
that is Holmes—
"is found to be insane he will go back to Broadmoor."
He was not so found and did not go to Broadmoor.
In March, 1955, a month after he was convicted, the Prison Commissioners refused to allow Holmes to sign cheques, as he was entitled to do under Prison Rule 380. This caused him to be sued in a civil suit, and the writ against him was received by the Prison Governor in June, 1955. But the writ was withheld and he was refused permission even to consult a solicitor until November, 1955, after he had complained to the board of visitors. As a result of this, the man lost his business and his assets and, of course was ruined, quite unnecessarily. He has persistently tried to obtain the permission of the Home Secretary to sue the Prison Commissioners for their wrongful action, but he has just as persistently been refused permission by the Home Office. I would mention, in order that your Lordships may not think these actions might be frivolous or vexatious, that he has since in prison successfully sued his bank and recovered £500.
For the last five years I have persistently pursued this man's case with successive Secretaries and Under-Secretaries of State at the Home Office. I suppose that, together, he and I, and his solicitors, have exchanged about one million words, and there have been numerous letters to the Home Office and a number of interviews with Ministers. In one of those Mr. Dennis Vosper, then Under-Secretary of State, suggested to me there should be a special medical examination to see if this man needed,
686
and would benefit from, a course of psychiatric treatment; and to this I naturally readily assented. There was a medical examination but no treatment, for the very sound reason that the doctors decided that none was needed. The prison doctor, Dr. Lloyd, certified that no treatment was needed and that the man was not insane. In fact since 1955 the Home Office has received a proliferation of medical reports "which they flatly refuse to produce." But I understand that they are conclusive in affirming, confirming and reaffirming that this man does not require treatment for any form of mental disorder.
My own view, of course, was that the Home Secretary would decide to exercise his discretion and release the man in October, 1961, some 18 months ago, when he had served six years and eight months in prison, which, with remission, would have been equal to the original 10 years' sentence. I was supported in this view by the fact that in July, August and September, 1960, Holmes was temporarily released on parole for visits to his family, to his father in Leeds, who was then seriously ill. This man was then completely at liberty, under no sort of supervision, and I submit that the Home Office would not have allowed him such freedom if they had thought he was a danger to society. Indeed, they have refused to allow him further visits on parole to his family only since I have pointed to this anomaly and pressed for the production of the medical reports as a preliminary to the man's release.
Failing any kind of success in my attempt to get a date set for his release, Holmes employed a solicitor to act for him. I hope that the solicitor will not mind my saying that he is an ordinary, efficient West country solicitor, with a general practice, to whom his experiences with the Home Office in acting for Holmes have been a major shock. And in order that I may not be accused of bias or lack of restraint in presenting this case, I will from now on use the solicitor's own words, and the replies from the Home Office, in telling the remainder of the story.
On September 4 last year the solicitor wrote to the Under-Secretary of State recounting the facts that I have already

687
related, and adding these points—I quote:
"In 1960, Mr. Holmes applied for a writ of habeas corpus and Lord Justice Parker took the view that the Court, on a writ of habeas corpus, was not concerned with the refusal of the Home Secretary to release the man. The question of whether or not Mr. Holmes was mentally unstable was indeed a matter for the decision of the Home Secretary. Mr. Holmes has applied to the Prison Commissioners for permission to institute proceedings for mandamus and certiorari, both of which have been refused.
"It would seem to me that Mr. Holmes' sentence is one which is far too severe and that the Court of Appeal were misguided in taking the view that he was mentally unstable, especially as never before had he committed any sort of sexual offence.
"Mr. Holmes seems to have exhausted every avenue for getting his case reviewed and, indeed, the refusal to allow him to issue a writ of mandamus and certiorari is one which has prevented him from doing any more. The only avenue now open to him would seem to be to address a Petition to both Houses of Parliament asking that he be released."
The solicitor went on, writing to the Home Secretary:
"I would therefore ask you to state

(a) The reason why you refused to release Mr. Holmes.

(b) Bearing in mind that the Judge's reason for altering his sentence was that they considered him mentally unstable, have you any medical evidence of any sort which would justify you in coming to the conclusion that the Judges were correct?

(c) Is it true that Dr. Lloyd has certified that this man is sane, and needs no treatment? If so, how can his release be denied to him, as he has already served more than his original sentence?

(d) Are you prepared to state any date on which you will release Mr. Holmes?"

On October 8 the reply from the Home Office said that the case would continue to be kept under regular view, but that the time had not come when the Secretary of State was justified in fixing a date for Holmes's release. They added:
"The case is not one in which psychotherapy or any other form of medical treatment would be likely to be of benefit at the present time."—
That was two years after the prison doctor had said that none was needed—
"The Secretary of State is not prepared to agree for you to arrange to have Holmes examined by a specialist outside the Prison Service".
Finally, referring to the request for facilities for visits by the solicitor far preparing the petition to Parliament, the letter continued:
688
"The Secretary of State finds no reason to direct that Holmes should be granted special facilities in the way of visits and correspondence in this matter."
To this the solicitor replied:
"I must protest at your refusal to allow this man to be independently examined, and I must ask you for your reason for this. Please let me have it. In my submission, as a British citizen Holmes has a right to be told why you are doing so and also to receive from you details of the disease or ailment from which you allege he is suffering and which in your opinion is so serious as to warrant your depriving him of his liberty.
"I must also protest at your insistence that my visits to the prison should come out of Mr. Holmes's normal quota allowed to him. It amounts to this. My visits are being restricted, and further Mr. Holmes' correspondence with me is also being restricted. You must realise that this is hampering me in my duty to my client, and I would like to know your reason for this decision. Also it has taken you over one month to deal with this most serious matter during which time this man has been kept in prison."
On October 22 the Secretary of State agreed to grant reasonable facilities to enable Holmes to provide such information as his solicitor required in preparation of the Petition. On February 28 the Petition was sent to me, and the Home Secretary was informed accordingly. At the same time the solicitor said this to the Home Secretary:
"In view, however, of your refusal to allow my client to be independently examined, I must now ask you to make available to me, as Mr. Holmes' legal adviser, and also to Lord Stonham, who is presenting the Petition, the medical records of Mr. Holmes. I refer to the records in general, and, in particular, to one dated October 31, 1962, and a further report dated January 22, 1963.
"I understand that these reports were made by the Medical Officer of Dartmoor Prison, and that you have been supplied with copies thereof. It seems to me that if you are refusing to allow this man his liberty on the grounds that he is suffering mental abnormality, and you are at the same time refusing to allow an independent doctor to examine him, then in common courtesy to him it is only right that he should have access to the medical records which are presumably a basis of your refusal to release him.
"I shall, of course, be prepared to pay your charges for supplying me with copies of all the relevant documents."
On the same day the solicitor informed me that he had seen Holmes in prison and that the medical reports had been read to him by the Medical Officer of Dartmoor Prison. One of these reports, dated October 31, 1962, stated that it was quite improbable that Mr. Holmes

689
would ever be convicted of a similar offence again, and when Mr. Holmes was again examined on January 22 this year the medical report confirmed that there was no abnormality, and again reiterated that it was quite improbable that he would repeat his offence.
On March 4 the solicitor wrote to the Prison Commissioners saying that he had seen Holmes who had mentioned that he had petitioned for permission to institute a civil action against the Prison Commissioners for damages. The solicitor did not go into detail because he had authority only to see Holmes in connection with his Petition, but he gathered that it arose from the Prison Commissioners' refusal to allow him to defend an action which was taken against him while he was in prison, as a result of which his business was forfeited. In asking the Commissioners to grant him permission to see Mr. Holmes, so that he could advise him as to his legal rights in connection therewith, the solicitor also referred to the need for an early reply as the time for commencing proceedings might soon be Statute-barred—which of course is important to-him.
On March 22 the solicitor was informed that the Secretary of State was not prepared to grant Holmes facilities to institute legal proceedings against the Prison Commissioners, and he therefore saw no reason to allow Holmes to obtain legal advice to that end. He would therefore be obliged if the solicitor would be good enough to continue to regard discussion of the subject as outside the purpose of the visits—indeed, the solicitor has to sign an undertaking every time he goes to the prison that he will discuss only the matter for which he has been granted permission to visit Holmes. He concludes his letter to me with these words:
"You will see from the reply of 22nd March, 1963, sent herewith that the Home Office refuses to allow this man even to have legal advice upon the matter, which again I think is a monstrous thing."
My Lords, so do I. In a later letter the solicitor says:
"I may say that having had this experience myself it makes me wonder how many more persons are in prison in this country under similar circumstances. Mr. Holmes happens to be a man of sufficient intelligence and education to be able to take matters up and fight for his own liberty, but what would
690
happen in a case where a man had by means of lack of education or ability been in a similar position I simply shudder to think."—
And I repeat, again, that the writer of this letter is a normal run-of-the-mill West Country solicitor.—
"Mr. Holmes has been refused permission to consult me concerning his civil rights against the Prison Commissioners who of course have prevented him from defending actions, which necessitated the liquidation of his company and as a result of which he has lost both his livelihood and a considerable amount of money. Naturally when Mr. Holmes is released he will be coming to see me, and maybe the Prison Commissioners will hear even more about this matter."
On April 4 the solicitor wrote to the Home Secretary just once more, and said:
"I am at a loss to understand your attitude in this matter, because, as I understand it, you are detaining this man in custody and saying in fact that he is not fit to be released into the world. You base your refusal to allow him his liberty upon his medical condition. You refuse to allow his medical records to be seen by his legal representative, and therefore the correctness or otherwise of your decision cannot be challenged from the medical record. On the other hand, when a request is made that you permit this man to be examined by independent specialists, so that the matter can be looked into, you again refuse to let anyone except the prison medical officers examine this man.
"You will doubtless appreciate that the rights of the subject and civil liberties are involved in this case, and it seems quite wrong that you should have the power to detain this man and to refuse to allow anyone to check up on his condition whatsoever. It is even more surprising to note from the correspondence that although you try and justify your refusal to allow him his liberty on medical grounds, you cannot name any complaint from which he is suffering and you say that he does not want any treatment of any sort."
Meanwhile, on March 7, I presented the Petition in your Lordships' House. It set out all the facts of this man's criminal career and sentence, and asked Her Majesty's Government (1) Whether they will make available for inspection the results of the previous medical examinations of Mr. Holmes; (2) Whether they will authorise an independent medical examination; and (3) Whether they will now release him. Five days after the presentation of my Petition in your Lordships' House, Mr. Brooke wrote to my right honourable friend Mr. Chuter Ede with reference to Holmes, and said:
"I am afraid that I am not yet prepared to fix a date for his release from prison on licence."

691
Ten days later, however, having presumably meanwhile studied the Petition, and having received my letter saying that I intended to raise the matter in your Lordships' House, the Home Secretary wrote to me saying:
"As it happens, Holmes' Petition has been presented at a time when I already had his case under review."
He suggested that I might care to defer my action in the matter, because he expected to reach a decision one way or the other quite soon. To this naturally I readily consented, and, on April 25, Mr. Brooke informed me that he had decided that, subject to his continued good conduct in prison, and to satisfactory arrangements for his resettlement, Holmes will be released on licence when he has been detained for nine years; that is, on February 13, 1964. My Lords, that would be the equivalent of a sentence of 13½ years—and it is not good enough.
So I renewed my previous appeal for the production of the medical certificates or for permission to have an independent medical examination, but this morning I received another letter from the Home Secretary again confirming his refusal to allow me to see the medical report on Holmes or to have him examined independently. From these refusals I submit that only one conclusion can be drawn—namely, that the Home Secretary is aware, and has always been aware, that this man is not insane, that he does not need medical treatment and that he is not a danger to society. The refusal to agree to either of the first two courses set out in the Petition is, in my view, unconscionable and indefensible, and is a denial of the basic elements of British justice. If the Home Secretary can forecast that this man will be fit to be released next February, he must know he is fit to be released now. Conversely, if he is a danger to the public now, what, I ask, makes the Home Secretary think that, without any sort of treatment, he will cease to be a danger in February, 1964?
My Lords, if this man committed that abominable crime he has been punished for it, and punished far more than the learned Judge thought was necessary when he passed the original and severe sentence of ten years. At Dartmoor, this man is a "trusty". He can go where
692
he likes; and, despite his unyielding demeanour and his rather sardonic humour, he is a respected person in the prison. He wrote to me the other day in these words:
"I enclose the letter I received from my mother this week. My dogs have died, my little daughter is ill"—
he has scarcely seen her; she is eight years old—
"my father is bedridden. My mother is an old-age pensioner now compelled to work merely to exist. All my applications to be allowed home leave or extended parole are refused. While the Home Office pundits are pondering the signs and portents of my intractability, it has not yet penetrated their official intelligence that my hostility is reasonably derived from the oppressive manner in which all the might of their combined authority has been and is being applied to cause the greatest possible damage to my personal and domestic and business life and to affect my family to such an extent. I am refused employment under the hostel scheme and refused my entitlement to be released."
In my submission, my Lords, the facts indicate that this man is sane, that he is not a menace to society, and that be has been punished enough. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to say that the Home Secretary must produce the medical reports or, if he will not, then I ask you in common justice to say that this man must be released immediately.
11.4 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has for a long time taken a close and continuing interest in this case; and it is, likewise, a case which has for long been the subject of the most attentive consideration by my right honourable friend and his predecessors. There are at present, my Lords, nearly 300 persons serving sentences of life imprisonment in England and Wales. All these cases—I repeat, all of them—are kept under the most careful and continuing review. Having read the papers (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say "some of the papers," since the file on this case is enormous), including the voluminous correspondence between my Department and the noble Lord, I should like personally to vouch for the deep seriousness with which this case, like others of its sort but this case particularly, has always been dealt with in my Department.
I do not think I need go back over the life history of Holmes. The noble Lord,

693
Lord Stonham, has given the facts very fully. As for the case: he was tried and convicted at York Assizes in February, 1955, on charges of rape and indecent assault. I would add only one fact, and that was that his wife, Mrs. Holmes, was convicted of aiding and abetting rape and was sentenced at that time to eighteen months imprisonment. But I do not wish to enlarge on the details of what, by all consent, was an unpleasing case. So far as the question of appeal was concerned, I would merely remind noble Lords that in giving judgment the then Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, said that the Court had come to the conclusion that it was their duty—and I quote his words:
"…to pass a sentence that will leave it entirely in the hands of the Home Secretary as to when the man is fit to be released."
As the noble Lord has mentioned (and although I think that in his mention of it there was an implication that my right honourable friend may have been influenced by the Petition which was before your Lordships House in this matter I do not want to follow the noble Lord down that avenue, except to say that this is not so), my right honourable friend already had this case under review at the time of the noble Lord's latest representations. In the light of the further review, and again after very careful consideration of all the circumstances of this extremely difficult case, my right honourable friend decided—and so informed the noble Lord, as he has informed us—that, subject to Holmes's continued good conduct in prison and satisfactory arrangements for his resettlement on release, he would be released on licence on February 13 next year. He will then have served nine years of the sentence of life imprisonment which the Court of Criminal Appeal substituted for the sentence of ten years imprisonment which was passed on him by the trial judge.
Before turning to the three specific questions which the noble Lord has asked me in his Question, I feel, in view of what he has said, that I should comment (and I will do so as briefly as I can) on one or two of the ether matters which he has raised. I say that I will comment briefly, but that is not because of the lateness of the hour—because this is a very serious case, and I am uninfluenced by the lateness of the hour in this respect. The noble Lord has
694
alluded to Holmes's persistent claim—and he has persistently claimed this—that he was wrongfully convicted of this terrible crime. All I would say is that his representations to this effect have been very carefully considered and a full inquiry was made into them. At no time, however, have any grounds emerged which would justify my right honourable friend or his predecessors in recommending any interference with that conviction. I would remind noble Lords that it is not, and, in my view, cannot be the practice of the Home Secretary, or of any Home Secretary to attempt to re-try cases. The exercise of the Prerogative or the reference to the Court of Criminal Appeal is, of course, contemplated only where there comes to notice some new evidence which was not available at the time of the trial.
The noble Lord has also claimed that there has been unwarranted interference with Holmes's communications with his solicitors. This, of course, was not one of the specific points which he mention in his Question. I wish in general to repudiate the suggestion that there has been any unwarranted interference of any sort; but I should like, if I may, to have a chance of looking at these detailed allegations which the noble Lord has made, and I will write to him about them and, if necessary, inform the House. However, I certainly wish here and now to repudiate his general contention.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the noble Earl will allow me, I quoted the actual letter from the Home Office denying facilities. That decision was later reversed and I also quoted that.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, what I was repudiating was the claim that this action was unwarranted, but, as I say, I will look into the details. As I have said, my right honourable friend has come to the conclusion, subject to certain conditions, that Holmes may be released on licence on February 13, 1964. However, I understand that the noble Lord is still dissatisfied with the way in which the case has been decided and with my right honourable friend's refusal to make available medical reports on Holmes, or to authorise an independent medical examination.
As I understand the noble Lord's argument—he will correct me if I am wrong—it is as follows. The Court of

695
Criminal Appeal, in substituting a life—that is, an indeterminate—sentence for the ten-year sentence previously passed on Holmes had in mind, among other things, that Holmes had recently been for a time in Broadmoor; and it follows from this and from other aspects of the course of judgment—in the noble Lord's view—that the Home Secretary, in deciding on the period of Holmes's detention, should be guided primarily, if not solely, by medical considerations. That is to say, if there were signs of mental abnormality, Holmes should be given appropriate treatment; but if there were no such signs, there could be no real justification for detaining him. It is against this background, as I understand it, that the noble Lord wishes to have the medical reports already made on Holmes produced, or to secure, subject to and dependent upon the evidence of such reports or an independent investigation, that Holmes should be immediately released.
LORD STONHAM: Or treated.
EARL JELLICOE: Yes, my Lords, or treated. I would say straight away that my right honourable friend is unable to accept this view of the case. One can certainly conceive circumstances where the question of release of a prisoner who is serving a sentence of life imprisonment may depend mainly, if not solely, on medical considerations. But this is not such a case. As my right honourable friend's predecessor informed the noble Lord, the conclusion which he, Mr. Butler, reached, after full consideration of the medical reports, was that Holmes's case was not one calling for any special form of medical treatment. My right honourable friend has found no reason to dissent from this conclusion. The case is therefore one, in my right honourable friend's view, which must be determined on other grounds and I shall refer in a moment or two to the general considerations which my right honourable friend takes into account in considering the period for which a person sentenced to life imprisonment should be detained. This being so, I would suggest that the question of medical reports is really something of a side issue.
Nevertheless, I should like to deal with the noble Lord's requests regarding those medical reports. As my right
696
honourable friend has already told the noble Lord, medical reports on prisoners are confidential to my right honourable friend, and it would certainly be entirely contrary to practice to disclose them. My right honourable friend regrets that he is unable to make an exception in this instance. The noble Lord may suggest—indeed, I think he has suggested it—that our practice here is wrong. But, my Lords, I would suggest that there is a very good reason for it. To disclose confidential medical reports of this type would surely be bound to inhibit the very nature of the reports provided by prison medical officers in the future, if we were to make a practice of this sort of thing. I would suggest, therefore, that there are solid grounds for not making an exception here to our longstanding practice.
Now I come to the question of an independent medical examination. It is, of course, open to my right honourable friend to arrange for a prisoner to be examined by an independent specialist if this is considered either necessary or desirable; but this is a matter for my right honourable friend to determine in the circumstances of the individual case, and he cannot accept that he is under an obligation to arrange for such an examination whenever it is requested by a prisoner or by his legal adviser or by other persons who may be intervening, quite properly, on his behalf. There is no question here of there being an issue between the prisoner, on the one hand, and the Home Secretary, on the other, which requires to be referred to or determined by some third party. It is entirely my right honourable friend's responsibility, in accordance with the discretion which Parliament has vested in him, to decide what medical advice he requires in any particular case; and in this instance, for the reasons which I have already indicated, my right honourable friend is entirely satisfied that an independent medical examination would not be of assistance.
I should now like to come to what I think has been the noble Lord's main point in his argument. He has urged very forcibly that my right honourable friend should release Holmes now, in default of medical evidence to the contrary, and he has argued this on the grounds that if Holmes may safely be released on licence in February next

697
year there is no reason on earth why he should not be released now on May 7, 1963. The noble Lord has bolstered his argument by pointing to the fact that Holmes is a "red band" prisoner—a "trusty "—and that he was released on parole on three separate days in 1960. I should like to deal with those two subsidiary arguments straight away. Holmes is, in fact, a "trusty". At Dartmoor he is employed in the gardens and greenhouses of the prison, and during that employment he is not under escort. But, my Lords, such freedom of movement within prison is a very different matter from freedom of movement outside the prison walls. Again, it is true that Holmes was released on parole in 1960 on three occasions to visit his father who was dangerously ill. But, here again, to release a prisoner for a matter of hours on compassionate grounds, with strict instructions to return by a particular time—the prisoner being fully aware of the consequence of abusing the conditions of his release—is a very different matter from releasing a man on licence.
I come back, in conclusion, to the noble Lord's main contention in favour of Holmes's early release. I would remind noble Lords that under Section 27 of the Prison Act, 1952, the Home Secretary has absolute discretion as to when a person serving a sentence of life imprisonment should be released on licence. It seems quite clear from the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal, which I have already quoted, that their intention was to leave the) timing of Holmes's release entirely to my right honourable friend's discretion. In considering the period for which such a person should be detained the Home Secretary takes into account—is bound to take into account—all the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence, the character and history of the offender, and any other relevant information. While great weight must obviously be given to medical advice in matters of this sort, that advice is not necessarily the paramount consideration.
I would emphasise that it is not, and never has been, the practice of the Home Secretary—of a Home Secretary, I prefer to say—to give reasons for his decision in a particular case. To do so would be bound to involve public discussion and
698
controversy about the detailed circumstances of the offender, about his conduct and development, whether favourable or otherwise, in prison, of a kind which would be highly detrimental to the prisoner's own interests and to his prospects of ultimate resettlement and rehabilitation. I have been indeed under some constraint, my Lords, in replying to the noble Lord, in that I felt it right not to depart from this principle, and thus I have avoided entering into some details of the case which we have been discussing. But I would emphasise that, as regards the fixing of the date for Holmes's release, the normal practice in life cases has been carefully and strictly observed. Your Lordships will know that Holmes was recently informed that he would be released on licence in February next. It is thought to be helpful, where the prisoner has served a substantial term of imprisonment, for him to be given ample notice before his release. This helps such a prisoner to make the necessary arrangements for his resettlement.
Again I should like to remind the noble Lord that he himself has urged from time to time—and I do not quarrel with this at all—that Holmes should be given a date of release to enable him to be considered for the hostel scheme. He will doubtless remember that my right honourable friend's predecessor gave an undertaking that, when the time came, a date would be fixed sufficiently far in advance for the necessary preparatory arrangements to be made. A prisoner who is included in the hostel scheme normally spends something like six or nine months in the hostel before release, and his case is considered by the hostel selection board about ten months before the date of release. I should like to mention to the noble Lord that I have had inquiries made at Dartmoor prison about the possibility of Holmes's taking part in the hostel scheme, and I can assure the noble Lord that if Holmes applies to be considered for the scheme he will be interviewed in the normal way by a selection board.
LORD STONHAM: May I interrupt the noble Earl to say that I told Holmes today to apply for the scheme? I understand that there is a board meeting on May 21. If there could be some hope that he could be accepted by the board

699
on that day for the scheme it would remove a considerable part of my objection to the later date.
EARL JELLICOE: I think the selection board must be allowed to exercise its independent judgment in this matter. I can certainly confirm that the selection board is meeting on that date, and if Holmes's application is properly made it will, of course, be carefully considered by the board. I think, without trespassing in any way on the board's independence, I can certainly give the noble Lord that assurance.
I am afraid I have dealt with the case at some length, as indeed did the noble Lord. I make no apology for doing so, because it is, I agree, a grave and serious one and deserves to be dealt with seriously. I do not doubt that I have failed to carry the noble Lord with me in much that I have said. But, my Lords, I must, in conclusion, again emphasise that the question whether, or when, a prisoner serving a sentence of life imprisonment should be released on licence lies entirely within the discretion of my right honourable friend. I am sure, speaking personally, that this cardinal principle is right. But I would once again assure the noble Lord that, in exercising the discretion with which he has been entrusted by Parliament, my right honourable friend has come to his decision in this case only after the most careful and earnest consideration of all the circumstances.

UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM AND NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL
Reported, with Amendments.

KILLINGHOLME JETTY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past eleven o'clock.