WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL

HL Deb 08 May 1963 vol 249 cc807-47

7.52 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.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]

Schedule 4:

PART VIII

Miscellaneous foods to be sold by or marked with net weight and to be pre-packed only in fixed quantities

1. This Part of this Schedule applies to the following foods, that is to say—

(c) honey, other than chunk honey

LORD STONHAM moved, in paragraph 1(c), after "chunk" to insert "or heather". The noble Lord said: I am moving this Amendment to try to remove a difficulty which the Bill in its present form makes for a small number of honey-packers in regard to the question of net weights. Even prior to the war the Ministry of Agriculture sponsored a honey jar design, which has since become the British standard and is now universally used by honey-packers, but a few honeys are lighter in density than most. In this country the only lighter density honey, or at least the only one that has a sufficiently light density to meet the difficulty, is heather honey.

The capacity of the standard B.S.I. 1 lb. jar is not adequate to hold 1 lb. of heather honey at the temperature of 130 degrees Fahrenheit which is necessary for packing. Because of that it is usual to have 15 oz. or 15½ oz. in the standard 1 lb. jar, and to label it accordingly, so that the purchaser is not deceived. Therefore, in this Amendment I am b asking the Committee to exclude heather honey from this provision with regard to 1 lb. jar net weight requirements. I should say that the quantity of heather honey bottled in this country amounts to not more than 200,000 to 300,000 jars a year, compared with something like 20 million jars of other kinds of honey, allowing for the very large volume of imported honeys.

I am not asking for this Amendment merely for the benefit of the few people who bottle and sell heather honey, but also for the other vast quantity of packers of the 20 million pounds of other honeys; because it would be necessary, in order for the bottlers of heather honey to comply with the requirement to put 1 lb. of honey in their jar, to have a larger jar. Quite obviously, that would lead to complaints with regard to other honeys that they did not contain 1 lb., or that they did not contain the normal quantity, or that they were underfilled or were not full-weight. Like so many things with which we deal, this appears to be a small point which has been overlooked. I make no complaint about that, but it is our duty, at Committee stage, to put these matters right and, as it were, to protect minorities and remove absurdities. It is for that reason I move this Amendment, which I hope will prove acceptable to the Government.

Amendment moved— Page 75, line 35, after ("chunk") insert ("or heather").—(Lord Stonham.)

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

I come from a heather honey part of the world, so I know a little about it. I am afraid, however, that I cannot accept that there is a case for excluding heather honey. I know that it differs from other honeys. It is what is called thixotropic—it has a jelly-like consistency; but there is not really undue difficulty in packing this kind of honey to a specified weight. The two main commercial producers in this country of heather honey have for many years marketed it in 1 lb. sizes.

The reason they are able to do it is this. The difficulty that can exist if you have an exact 1 lb. jar is that the density of the honey varies from year to year, and because the jelly-like consistency leads to the trapping of air bubbles it is suggested that it is difficult to get 1 lb. of honey into the British Standard Institute jar. But in fact the normal 1 lb. jar which is made to B.S.I. specification has a margin which is adequate to cover the slight variations of density. In fact it is that jar which the two commercial bottlers of heather honey use and market, quite correctly, as 1 lb. jars. I can assure the noble Lord that I do not think this change is necessary and it would be unwise to make this exception. I hope he will not press this Amendment.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

I think the noble Lord in charge of the Bill is perfectly right, because it is a very difficult matter to say what is heather honey. When one has bees kept at the edge of a moor, the honey they are producing often varies from perhaps almost 100 per cent. heather honey to something less than that amount. I should be very sorry for any inspector who had to decide what was heather honey and what was not.

LORD STONHAM

What the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has said illustrates the point which we come up against so often in these debates. It is quite impossible, of course, for the very learned people who are advising the noble Lord to know everything about everything, and obviously this is one of the questions about which they do not know everything. I find myself quite unconvinced by the noble Lord's answer, because he did not deal with the basic reason for this Amendment; namely that heather honey is more volatile—in other words, there is a large bulk to be compressed into the same standard jar.

My advice from those who know about these things (I am not an apiarist, and do not pretend any expertise in this matter) is that it is not possible to pack 1 lb. of heather honey in the same capacity jar as will accommodate other brands of honey. That seems to me to be a fair proposition, because of the volatile nature of this particular commodity. The reason why we are asking for any Amendment is this technical reason; not because of any dishonesty, but because of a natural and proper desire to protect this small industry from any unfair burden which would damage it and lessen the sale, or impose impossible conditions, if this commodity were not exempted. The noble Lord will be aware, for example, that from these provisions he has for a very good reason exempted chunk honey and we are asking that heather honey should be added to the exemptions.

I really do feel that the answer he has given has not been prompted by full consideration of this point; and for that perhaps I am partially responsible, because the Amendment was tabled fairly late. Therefore the Government may have had a hasty look at it and, as is the custom in such matters, constitutionally decided to say, "No". Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord to have a look at this again, because I am sure we are all agreed that we do not want to damage unnecessarily this little part of this industry.

LORD DERWENT

May I just reply to that? I am not being unreasonable; I do know something about it. I know something about it because, unlike most parts of Scotland, in my part of Yorkshire the heather honey is produced by bees sent mostly from the plain of York up into the area of the moors. Although, of course, there must be some other flower used in many of the places honey comes from, here there is nothing else but heather because the actual hives are moved up into particular places. But I would agree with the noble Lord in what he says about chunk honey; it is impossible to pack it—I use the word "impossible" advisedly—to a specified weight.

I know perfectly well that, if it was a jar that held only a pound of ordinary honey it would be impossible to pack heather honey, but the British Standards Institution jar has a tolerance and a margin. You can, in fact, and without any difficulty, pack heather honey into this jar, because it is slightly larger than would hold a pound of ordinary honey. That is the position. I have not been rushed over this. I have been into this very carefully, I promise the noble Lord, and I assure him that this Amendment really is not necessary.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD STONHAM moved to add to Part VIII: (m) biscuits (other than in a quantity of less than 4 ounces), arrow root, cream of tartar, baking powder, raising powder, dessicated and flaked coconuts, ground almonds, mustard powder and mustard compounds, pepper and pepper compounds and spices.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment proposes to add the list of foods mentioned in it to those which, in our view, should be sold by net weight and pre-packed only in fixed quantities. I would draw your Lordships' particular attention to the fact that we propose that biscuits should be subject to this requirement only if packed in quantities of 4 oz. or more. In my view, this would remove the principal objection which I know exists to including pre-packed biscuits in small quantities. Most of the items mentioned in this Amendment are granular and there are no real technical difficulties, therefore, in complying with its requirements. I am rather at a loss to understand, indeed, why they were not included by the Government in the list in Part VIII of Schedule 4.

All these things are of importance to the housewife. Most of them are supplied pre-packed—not entirely, but as a general rule—for the major part of the trade, and it would seem quite important that they should be supplied in known quantities. When we have been discussing previous Amendments which the noble Lord has resisted, he has referred again and again to the importance of having standard recognisable quantities. He was most insistent that one-third of a pint of milk, six and two-thirds fluid ounces, was a recognisable standard quantity, and that 8 oz. was not a recognisable standard quantity. So that here I am using his own argument, which I am sure he will find more convincing.

LORD DERWENT

My own argument, slightly distorted.

LORD STONHAM

So slightly that I cannot recognise a distortion, and the noble Lord is quite unable to point out where the distortion lies.

LORD DERWENT

No, I shall.

LORD STONHAM

I shall be very interested to hear that. But the main point I want to deal with is biscuits, where I know the trade objection lies. It is argued that, because of difficulties with regard to machinery, it is not really possible, or economically possible, without considerable adjustment and therefore considerable expense, to pack in the fixed quantities specified in the Schedule. When we were dealing with the clauses, it will be within your Lordships' recollection that I produced an advertisement from one of the best known firms of biscuit manufacturers, who advertised the fact that they were selling a ½ lb. of biscuits, which was stamped on the packet. I am therefore totally unimpressed by these arguments that there is any real major technical difficulty in selling quantities of biscuits above ¼ lb. in weight in recognised quantities.

It is a fact, and it is no use attempting to dispute it, that housewives buy packets of biscuit weighing 6 oz., 6½ oz., 7 oz., in the belief—admittedly, it is a mistaken belief, and admittedly 6 oz. or 7 oz. may be stamped somewhere on the packet—that they are getting ½ lb. of biscuits. That firm whose name I shall not quote—it is one of the best known firms in the country—go to the trouble of advertising, and spending a lot of money on advertising, the fact that their particular packet does contain ½ lb. of biscuits.

I should have thought that all the commodities mentioned in this Amendment, including biscuits of 4 oz. or above, should be included in the provisions which the Government have thought it necessary to make in Part VIII of the Schedule. I shall, of course, listen with the greatest interest to the noble Lord's argument. But I think there is a very strong case for this Amendment—a strong case, that is, in the interests of the consumer, for whom this Bill is really intended—provided that we do not inflict any unfair impracticable burdens on the manufacturers and suppliers. I would submit that by this Amendment we have specifically avoided the infliction on the suppliers of unfair burdens, and I think that this is an Amendment which should be accepted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 76, line 4, at end insert the said subparagraph.—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD DERWENT

The Amendment, as the noble Lord has said, seeks to add a number of miscellaneous foods to the goods which are required by the Schedule to be packed only in specified quantities. That is the point of the Amendment. I cannot accept that it is necessary or desirable to require this considerable and varied collection of goods to be made up in specified quantities. I quite agree that, in the case of certain articles, specified quantities can be a very valuable form of consumer protection. This is why we have provided in the Schedule that this requirement shall apply to a substantial number of staple foods. But we must recognise, I think, that, valuable though in some cases this may be, it is not suitable for application to all goods. I must say that, to put it mildly, I am astonished at the concern of the noble Lord that arrowroot and cream of tartar should be packed in specified quantities only, when yesterday he appeared to be quite unconcerned at the prospect of milk being sold to housewives in quantities of seven, eight or nine fluid ounces, as the trader might think fit.

LORD STONHAM

That, of course, would be a specified quantity.

LORD DERWENT

The milk was, but he was objecting to our specified quantities. He was merely saying that you should vary the quantity, and it might happen to be seven, eight or nine fluid ounces. But they were not specified, except that they were marked. They were not, within the terms of this Bill, specified quantities.

I shall be coming on to biscuits as a separate matter in a minute, because biscuits are a separate problem, but as regards all these other things the real fact is that, with the development of modern packaging methods, it is often considerably more economical (and, therefore, a question of cost for the customer eventually) for a manufacturer or packer to use standard-sized containers for a variety of different products. The products may vary in density, so that the same size containers will contain different weights according to the density of the contents. The same kind of package may have different contents and, therefore, the weight in the package will vary. To require each product to be packed in the same weight would mean the use of many different-sized containers, which would add to the cost and might not even be practicable.

I would remind Members of the Committee that it was pointed out by Mr. Darling in the other place—and we, too, consider him an expert in these matters—that a requirement to pack certain canned goods (and some of these might be canned) in specified quantities would be uneconomic, because the varying densities of the products would require a greater variety of sizes of cans than it is economical to make. Leaving out the question of biscuits, that would apply to this enormous variety of goods. I think we must preserve some sense of proportion in these matters, and, I am sorry, I really cannot accept that specified quantities are necessary for the additional goods set out in the Amendment. Under this Bill, if the quantity of any of these goods is one ounce or over (except in the case of biscuits, when it is four ounces or over), then the weight of each of these articles will be marked on the package. I believe that, from a practical point of view, that is the best way of handling it.

Biscuits present a slightly different picture, but, even with biscuits, I am not satisfied, for reasons I shall explain, that it is desirable to require them to be made up in fixed quantities prescribed by Part VIII of the Schedule, even though the Amendment proposed excludes packs under 4 oz., which is, of course, an important point. Biscuits differ substanially in density, and they are customarily packed in a very wide range of sizes. There are many convenient-sized packs between 4 oz. and 8 oz. which are not permitted by Part VIII, and a host of fancy boxes and tins in sizes which are also not among those allowed. Moreover, some biscuits are large and relatively heavy—and this is the difficulty about biscuits—and it may be difficult in some cases to get a precise number of these biscuits to weigh precisely 4 oz. or 8 oz. I would remind the Committee that it is an offence to give over-weight as well as under-weight. To impose specified sizes would involve, as is obvious, substantial manufacturing and packaging changes, and could lead to increased costs.

I would say this: that we must be careful, in seeking to protect the consumer with specified sizes, which can sometimes be done very satisfactorily—I am not arguing about that—that, by trying to do this where it is not suitable, we do not cancel out the benefit by removing the freedom of choice and by putting up the price. May I just add that there are some biscuits made of wheat, and so on, and covered with chocolate or filled which will weigh over an ounce each, and they will still be covered by this Amendment. They are packed separately; and that really makes nonsense of the Amendment if you work it out. I am not being offensive, but I mean that from a practical point of view.

We know and are well aware that this question of biscuits needs careful consultation, but the matter is so complicated that it must, I think, be carried out in conjunction with the industry—and that does not mean only the manufacturers, I might add. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade is going to hold discussions with the biscuit manufacturers in due course, and fairly shortly, so that, if it is practicable and appropriate—and I say no more than that, but if arrangements can be made which are practicable—an order will be made which will have the effect the Amendment seeks. But at the moment we do not see a way round the difficulty. That, quite frankly, is the difficulty, and I do not think, therefore, that I could possibly accept this Amendment.

I would just add this: that the Hodgson Committee recognised the manufacturing difficulties which would arise from requiring biscuits to be packed in specified quantities, and for that reason pointed out that they could not recommend that this particular requirement set out in the Amendment should be made. I hope, in view of what I have said, that the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment. What I said about the first part was that I do not think it is practical, but the important part is as to the biscuits, and there I do not think it is practical at the present time.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has made a detailed and full explanation of the point of view of the Board of Trade upon this matter at the present time. What I welcomed was that at the end of his statement he talked about having a conference as early as possible with the biscuit manufacturers in order to come, perhaps, to some measure which would meet very largely the purpose of my noble friend's Amendment. But what I cannot understand about that is that although there have been so many complaints from women's organisations on this point, as some of us know, and although we went into great detail on the Weights and Measures Bill, 1960, which did not get through the other place, the Board of Trade do not seem to have heard of those views of the women and nothing has been done in the almost three years since the last Weights and Measures Bill was considered.

I think the Board ought to have been ready to deal with matters of this kind when there has been such a long time since the last Bill, and that we should have had the full views of the Board as a result of conferences with the biscuit manufacturers. I make no complaint, as I have indicated, about the details, and so on, of the position of the Board of Trade, which the noble Lord has given, but if my noble friend decides to withdraw his Amendment I think it would be wise that a further look should be taken at this matter (we still have another stage of the Bill) to see whether or not something, at least, could be done in this direction, always remembering what a long time the Board of Trade have had to consider it.

LORD DERWENT

I am grateful to the noble Earl. It enables me to say that I have perhaps put my point badly. We have not stopped this investigation since the last Bill, but we have not got anywhere because of the difficulties of the problem. But we are not going to stop. If we can get a solution one day we shall. Frankly, with certain biscuits, one biscuit is so extraordinarily heavy: that is one of the difficulties. It would be unfair to choose one biscuit rather than another.

LORD PEDDIE

I appreciate the difficulty that the noble Lord mentioned, particularly with regard to biscuits from the manufacturer's standpoint. I was intrigued with the comment that further discussion would take place. Could the noble Lord tell me with whom these discussions would take place?

LORD DERWENT

I am sorry, but I cannot say at the moment because the discussions have occurred at a great many different levels. I may add, since the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, has spoken, that the Co-operative Wholesale Society, as well as other manufacturers, presumably find this problem intractable, because I know they want to arrive at a solution but they sell many biscuit packs in odd sizes of all kinds between 4 oz. and 8 oz., in spite of the fact that they would like to simplify this number of packs.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

May I drop biscuits, and come back to the first part of the noble Lord's answer? It surprises me that the point of his argument rests on the belief that all the miscellaneous products mentioned in the Amendment are sold in standardised containers. If the noble Lord goes into any dozen kitchens anywhere in the country he may find the shelves full of 20, 30 or 50 little containers. I should be surprised if he found any two the same.

LORD DERWENT

But not from the same manufacturer. Where they make two or more or package them, they in fact use one or two sizes, and another manufacturer may use another couple of sizes. But a packaging firm, over a wide variety of goods, will use one or two varieties of packing in each scale.

LORD STONHAM

I think the most important thing that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, was that the Government were going to consult the biscuit manufacturers and packers to see whether they can make an order to achieve the purposes of the Amendment. That is a paraphrase of what he said, but an accurate one. That shows that, so far as the purposes of the Amendment are concerned, the Government think we are right.

LORD DERWENT

I think the principle is right. I am saying it is not practicable. We have no objection to the principle of the Amendment at all.

LORD STONHAM

The principle of the Amendment is right; therefore the only difficulties are either the disinclination of the manufacturers to comply or the very real technical difficulties—if they are such. I hope in the discussions that the Government are going to have they will give due weight to those manufacturers, important ones, who are at the present time packing in recognisable quantities and weights above a quarter pound, and advertising it; and in that way letting the housewife know clearly what quantity she is buying and what price per pound she is paying. That is one of the essential purposes of this Bill. Frankly—and I am only speaking personally—I am not impressed by the so-called technical arguments used against the Amendment, and I therefore hope that there will be a searching inquiry into these technical points when the Government consider making this order.

I would say one thing to the noble Lord with regard to one argument he used. He urged me to preserve a sense of proportion, and then quoted my honourable friend Mr. George Darling as saying in another place that canned goods would require different sizes of container for the same quantity. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has just resisted my claim for exemption of heather honey because that would need larger containers to pack the same weight as other forms of honey. I would tell him to preserve a sense of proportion.

LORD DERWENT

It takes more than one pound of ordinary honey.

LORD STONHAM

The noble Lord has just used this argument against me in reverse in successive Amendments. I do not mind his using an argument on Monday, in resisting an Amendment, and reversing the argument on Wednesday to resist another Amendment the other way; but when he does it on successive Amendments it is a little like the character in Alice who decides that words will mean what he intends them to mean. The noble Lord has given us encouragement in his Answer, and therefore I do not intend to press this Amendment. But in the light of the Answer he has given we may look at it again and perhaps come back on Report stage with a revised Amendment which may meet some of the objections he has made to the present one. With that, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Part VIII agreed to.

Remaining Parts of Schedule 4 agreed to.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Schedule 6:

SOLID FUEL

PART I

General

5.—(1) A local weights and measures authority may make byelaws, subject to the confirmation of the Minister of Power, for any of the following purposes, that is to say— (a) for securing that on any premises within their area on or from which solid fuel available for purchase in a quantity of two hundredweight or less is sold or kept or exposed for sale there is displayed a notice specifying the price of the fuel; and

6. A person who with intent to defraud or deceive damps any solid fuel shall be guilty of an offence.

8.29 p.m.

LORD LATHAM moved, in paragraph 5(1)(a), to leave out "in a quantity of two hundredweight or less". The noble Lord said: This is a simple though important Amendment, and it has every merit entitling it to acceptance by the Government. It is a happy circumstance that it is proposed in the Schedule to apply the provision of the declaration of price which must also be notified in respect of the sales of solid fuel. Unhappily, the merits of the proposal are substantially vitiated because the proposal is limited to quantities of 2 cwt. or less.

The adherence to 2 cwt. or less is really an anachronism. It arises from the circumstance that under the Weights and Measures Act, 1889, quantities there were generally restricted to 2 cwt. or less. because the law-making powers, mainly intended for other purposes, were restricted to quantities not exceeding 2 cwt. The year 1889 was in the horse age, when local government areas and areas for writs of justices and many other factors were determined by how many miles a horse could trot in a day. Those conditions no longer apply, and there is no reason why we should adhere to this archaic limitation of 2 cwt. or less. Nor is there any justification for saying that those who order solid fuel in quantities larger than 2 cwt. should be denied the benefit of this provision. This proposal does not give rise to any difficulty to suppliers, merchants producers or manufacturers. It is a decision which can be taken simply, as another means of protection for the consumer. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 84, line 16, leave out ("in a quantity of two hundredweight or less").—(Lord Latham.)

LORD DERWENT

Paragraph 5 of Schedule 6, to which this Amendment relates, empowers local authorities to make by-laws to require that price notices are displayed on premises and, by virtue of the definition of "premises" in Clause 58, on vehicles where solid fuel is available for purchase in quantities of 2 cwt. or less, and also to prohibit sales at a higher price than on these price notices. The Amendment would remove the 2 cwt. limit and enable the powers to be exercised by local authorities in respect of all sales of solid fuel. I am sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment. It would mean that local authorities would have power to make by-laws on these price matters which would apply to all premises from which solid fuel is sold, in mine dumps, gas works, coal yards, and all wholesalers' and retailers' premises. This would be wholly wrong in principle, as well as being quite impracticable.

The provisions in paragraph 5 of the Schedule are designed to deal with the particular cases where solid fuel is available for purchase in very small quantities of 2 cwt. or less. This, in practice, means only those cases where solid fuel is sold from vehicles—either hawkers' vehicles or trolleys operated by merchants, which make door-to-door sales, and sales from some retailers' premises which make direct sales in quantities up to 2 cwt. It does not normally apply to the ordinary coal merchants' premises which handle the bulk of retail sales of solid fuel, since I understand that fuel is not normally available for purchase from these premises in quantities of 2 cwt. or less.

I am sure that it would be wrong to extend these provisions beyond the very narrow field to which they now apply. The question of price marking of goods generally is extraneous to this Bill, which deals with quantity, and we cannot agree that it would be right to apply to the solid fuel trade in general requirements which do not apply to other trades. The special provisions in paragraph 5 relating to these small sales are really an anomaly in the Bill. Noble Lords could well argue that they should not be there at all and that they discriminate against coal merchants as compared with those selling other goods. The Government have, however, agreed to include paragraph 5 only in response to strong representations that in this very special field it provides a necessary protection for the consumer, a protection which has applied under existing law since 1890 and ought to be continued. We have accepted that, and this is as far as it would be right to go. We are not prepared to extend this exceptional provision to all sales of solid fuel.

LORD LATHAM

Would the noble Lord say by whom the representations were made?

LORD DERWENT

I am afraid that I cannot tell the noble Lord, simply because I do not know.

LORD LATHAM

Noble Lords are being asked to decide with incomplete knowledge. Why cannot we have the information as to who made the representations?

LORD DERWENT

If they were made in accordance with what the noble Lord would approve, I cannot see why it matters to him why we gave way to them.

LORD LATHAM

The noble Lord may approve them, but that does not approve concealment.

LORD DERWENT

I can now tell the noble Lord that it was the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council which made the representations referred to.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I should like to be sure how the law would be left as the result of this Amendment. Do I understand from the noble Lord's reply that if a coalman supplies four bags instead of two, then he is exempt.

LORD DERWENT

This Amendment does not deal with that at all, but with power to make by-laws. At the moment, local authorities may make by-laws insisting that price notices are displayed on premises, which include vehicles in certain cases, for the sale of quantities of 2 cwt. or less. This is the present position in law, and the clause leaves that as it is. What the Amendment tries to do is to enable the local authority to make additional by-laws to cover all sales over 2 cwt. That would be a change in the law and it is that which we are resisting, not the power to make by-laws.

LORD LATHAM

There is no such limitation at present to the power of local authorities to make by-laws. Therefore, the situation will be worse on the passing of this provision.

LORD DERWENT

I am sorry. The present law limits the power of local authorities to 2 cwt. or less.

LORD LATHAM

We are seeking to alter that.

LORD DERWENT

I agree. But we do not think it should be altered.

LORD LATHAM

The noble Lord said in justification of this proposal, or, at least, I understood him to say, that if the Amendment were accepted deliveries of coal or solid fuel to persons in the trade would be permitted. If that be the case, it would be possible so to frame this provision as to exempt deliveries of solid fuel for trade or commercial purposes and nevertheless remove the restriction as regards the sale of solid fuel for domestic consumption. Is the noble Lord prepared to consider looking at the matter on that basis?

LORD DERWENT

The Amendment as it is drafted would give power to local authorities not only over trade premises, but also over wholesalers and retailers and their trade. We do not think that that ought to be done. And even if it was confined to the trade, other than mines, gas works and so on, which I suppose is what the noble Lord means, we still do not think the power should be extended. It is not in force to-day and there is no reason to give it now.

LORD LATHAM

That is to say, we should not improve progressively legislation and the protective facilities for the consumer?

LORD DERWENT

That is what is between us. We do not think it would be an improvement.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I recognise that this perhaps wants close comparison with every other part of the Bill, but it seems to me that where you have had these representations from the associated coal consumers, or whatever they call themselves, they want justice for the consumer all the way round. What you are doing is to refer all quantities from 2 cwt. and less to the decision of a local authority as to whether they make a by-law.

LORD DERWENT

As regards the amounts of 2 cwt., yes.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

How can you be sure that every local authority will adopt it as a by-law?

LORD DERWENT

What the local authority does as regards its by-laws is nothing to do with Her Majesty's Government.

LORD LATHAM

But it is. What you are proposing to do is to remove the power of the local authorities.

LORD DERWENT

What we are proposing to do is not to extend the power.

LORD LATHAM

No. You are proposing to remove the power.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I think you are in a proper muddle about this.

LORD LATHAM

I think the reception of this proposal by the noble Lord is most disappointing. We took the view that we were co-operating with the Board of Trade in seeking to make this provision effective and of value to the consumer. The noble Lord has not indicated that he would be prepared to look at the matter again, and we must consider the question between now and the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, with your Lordships' permission, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LATHAM

I do not propose to move the next Amendment.

LORD DERWENT

I should be obliged if the noble Lord would move it.

LORD LATHAM

I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 84, line 22, insert— ("(c) for prescribing penalties not exceeding £20 for any offence under such byelaws.")—(Lord Latham.)

LORD DERWENT

This is rather unusual. The noble Lord has put down this Amendment, with which we agree in principle, but we came to the conclusion that we could do it better and therefore put down Amendment No. 62B. I had another conference this afternoon with my advisers, and we reversed our decision. We now think the noble Lord's Amendment is better than ours, and I am very glad to accept it.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

I should like to suggest to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that this Amendment does not go far enough, inasmuch as it says only "£20 for any offence". It says nothing about a second or subsequent offence. I know only too well that firms who are inclined to be dishonest, or dishonest persons employed by firms, often repeat the offence. I happen to know this because we have in my area a very active inspector of weights and measures who has succeeded in prosecuting and obtaining convictions against a number of coal merchants, I having to authorise these prosecutions. In several cases, within a few months there have again been offences. I would suggest to the noble Lord that it would be no bad thing if on the Report stage after "not exceeding £20", he inserted "for any first offence under such bylaws, and £50 for any second or subsequent offence".

LORD DERWENT

If the noble Earl wants to do that, he can put down an Amendment. At the moment, we agree with noble Lords opposite, and I have accepted this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

8.48 p.m.

LORD STONHAM moved to add to paragraph 5(1): ( ) for requiring the carrying of scales in accordance with section 28(1)(b) of the Weights and Measures Act 1889.

The noble Lord said: In view of the exchange of views on the last but one Amendment, I would remind your Lordships that we are considering under paragrah 5 provisions of those kind about which a local authority can make by-laws. My understanding of the situation is that in this Bill the Government propose to repeal all the by-law making powers of local authorities, except for the exceptions which are in this paragraph, and to which we hope to add. I hope that is a correct statement of the position. Therefore, I am proposing here in this Amendment to add an additional provision under which the local authority would have the right to make by-laws. I am bound to say at once to the noble Lord that the particular Amendment would not have immediate value after the passing of the Bill, because this is one of the Acts which the Government propose to repeal. But if after I have discussed this matter and put the case he then says that he would be prepared to accept the Amendment in principle, then on the Report stage I will submit another Amendment and specify the exact powers which a local authority would have to make by-laws. I hope that the point is clear to the noble Lord.

A case which I can mention in support of this Amendment concerns Birmingham, where their local by-laws were reinforced as recently as 1958. Your Lordships will be aware that Parliamentary approval is not granted without establishing real need. They are particularly concerned at the loss of the inspectors' independent power to check weigh vehicles, which they have held for many years, because without this they say it would be most difficult to detect or prove breaches of Part III of the Bill: for example, the issue of false weigh tickets, the making of false records, the declaration of false tare weights and offences involving collusion between weighing machine attendants and drivers of vehicles.

Clause 31 does not go far enough in this respect, because most of the large scale frauds which have been discovered in this field, involving such goods as hay, scrap metal and wood fuel, have been completely unsuspected by the party defrauded. The repeal, therefore, of local by-laws, including the carrying of scales on coal vehicles, is regarded as a serious error. During the last three months, in Birmingham alone, twelve separate prosecutions were brought for offences involving serious short weight in bags, and in these cases the short weights were ascertained by means of scales carried on the vehicle, as the inspectors concerned were not carrying coal weighing equipment at the time. Indeed, there was one case where an offence occurred on a Saturday afternoon when the inspector was off duty and was able to prove the offence only because there were scales on the vehicle. Obviously, if weights can only be checked by inspectors at times when the inspectors are actually carrying coal weighing equipment the present very unsatisfactory position in this trade is likely to become acutely worse.

It is difficult to see how paragraph 7 of Schedule 6 can be effective unless the scales are carried, because if the coal man has to go away to get scales he will obviously take the opportunity to see that the bags he has left on the vehicle are the correct weight. That will mean that the buyer will then be liable for the costs incurred in the re-weighing, including, presumably, the man's time in going back to the wharf for the scales. It seems to me that local authorities ought to have by-law making powers in this respect, as asked for in the Amendment. Then should this difficulty occur in their area, they can provide for it by by-laws. I trust, therefore that the Government will agree that the case is proved, and that they will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 84, line 22, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD DERWENT

As the noble Lord said, this Amendment seeks to give local weights and measures authorities powers to require the carrying of scales. At the present day there are many local authorities who have these by-laws, made under the Weights and Measures Act, 1889, requiring weighing machines to be carried on vehicles carrying coal. We have so far in this respect followed the Hodgson Committee recommendations and Report. We have come to the conclusion that in to-day's conditions this is no longer appropriate, because the Hodgson Committee found that the customer—I am talking about the customer, and not the inspector—rarely asked the delivery man to weigh the coal on delivery. The scales which he carries under the by-laws are expensive and heavy, and take up a lot of space which can be more usefully employed in carrying more coal. We feel that we should not keep in being a requirement to maintain a facility which is, in practice—I must not be too precise, and I will say "not much used" by the consumer, and which must add to the cost of distribution.

What normally happens—and let us be quite frank about it—apart from the Saturday afternoon which the noble Lord quoted, is that in most local authorities, whether they have a by-law or not, the inspectors carry in their car—and they are always motorised now—scales to weigh these deliveries. The object of the 1889 rule, to put it in that way, was that everyone thought the customer would say "Weigh my coal", and in fact they did not. If it is a question of inspecting, the inspector nowadays normally carries scales for weighing, and, of course, he will always carry scales for weighing if the clause is left as it is. Frankly, we think that what the noble Lord is asking for is rather out of date, and particularly because the Hodgson Committee also found that to be so.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

I am not very happy about the Government's refusal to consider this point, because I know that in many cases up to 80 percent. of the sacks carried on lorries have been found to be deficient, from amounts ranging from one or two pounds to as much as 17 lb. The people who suffer from this are usually poor people, and I am quite convinced that the reason why more use is not made of it is that such people are not aware of their rights. I cannot see that it would in any way be difficult for a lorry to carry a weighing machine which would weigh a sack of coal. I feel that this is necessary having regard to the amount of swindling which is going on, sometimes practised by a firm, and sometimes, perhaps more often, by the employees of the firm. They start out in the morning, and they get to a quiet corner and open up all the sacks. They have a spare sack or two ready, and they put a few lumps into it from each of the others, and then they are able to sell one or more sacks and keep the proceeds. Whether it is the firm or the employee doing it, the result is the same. A number of poor people are defrauded, and quite often constantly defrauded, and no matter how energetic an inspector may be, in a thickly populated area with large amounts of coal being sold off the lorry, a dishonest firm or delivery man will get away with it much too often. I hope the Government, between now and Report stage, will have second thoughts on the matter, because I do not think the present position is satisfactory.

LORD DERWENT

Perhaps my noble friend would let me know, either now or at some other time, whether the cases he has spoken about occur where there is a by-law that the scales have to be carried, and whether the customers asked for the coal to be weighed. If they do not ask for it to be weighed, there is not much point in carrying scales. The question of whether they know their rights or not does not come into it.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

I think it is vital.

LORD DERWENT

If it can be weighed and they do not ask for it to be done, there is no point in having the scales. There is the argument, which has not yet been answered, about taking up unnecessary room. What I am getting at is this. If somebody can produce evidence that customers now ask for coal to be weighed when there are scales, then I will reconsider it, but at the moment our information, which is confirmed by the Hodgson Committee, is that the customers do not ask, and, therefore, these scales serve little purpose. That is the position I am putting forward.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

In the case of Birmingham, mentioned by my noble friend, the point is that the scales are being provided by the merchants under the by-law. What this Bill will do is to wipe that out. The evidence has been given in Lord Stonham's speech that only recently there have been as many as twelve prosecutions in this regard, discovered by using the scales on the wagon at the time.

Another point is this. My impression, from reading the police court cases and the prosecutions which have taken place, is that in some circumstances the proceedings are as a result of a complaint made by consumers that they appear to be getting short weight. They are obviously dissatisfied, and perhaps a special test is made later on by an inspector of weights and measures. I do not think in a case of this kind you ought to destroy the individual right of the citizen to demand that the coal is weighed for her, especially if she has been thinking that the coal has not been lasting because of short weight on previous deliveries. If she has any doubt or suspicions, she has the right to ask for it to be weighed in her presence. I think therefore the noble Lord should either grant the Amendment tonight or promise to consider it before Report stage.

LORD DERWENT

I am quite prepared to have a look at this but I should like some evidence, apart from the one case on a Saturday afternoon, that the prosecutions are a result of customers saying "Weigh my coal". If they complain to the weights and measures inspector that they think they are getting short weight, he then arrives at the next delivery with his scales—which is what normally happens. But, according to our evidence and according to the Hodgson Committee Report, the scales on a lorry—not the weighing, but the actual scales—are never asked for and perhaps never used. Therefore, we think it is rather absurd to carry them. The inspectors carry their own.

If I can get evidence, in fact, that the customers had asked quite commonly for their coal to be weighed in front of them, then I am perfectly prepared to consider it.

LORD PEDDIE

Even if the scales are seldom asked for, the noble Lord is overlooking the considerable value that lies in the possession of these scales by their acting as a deterrent. If it is well-known that scales will never be carried it is an open invitation to the unscrupulous distributor and hawker to give short-weight; and surely there is a virtue, in the interest of the consumer, in compelling the carrying of these scales and their acting as a deterrent to the unscrupulous hawker and distributor.

LORD DERWENT

I have been given a note of some interest. I am told that a weighing machine, plus the necessary weights, is equivalent to approximately two sacks of coal. This is an appreciable amount on a lorry, a significant proportion of the load. I agree that if it is to be used it should be carried irrespective of that, but if it is not going to be used (and, according to my noble friend, although the scales are on the lorry people do not know they are to be used, as I understood him to say, which rather contradicts what the noble Earl has been suggesting), there would not seem much point in having them. I promise to have another look at this point, and study Hansard on what has been said to-night. I see that there is a case, but our evidence is that these scales are, in practice, rather a waste of time. But if any noble Lord, apart from the case of Birmingham, can give me any other information saying that they are used, that sacks are weighed and so on, I shall be very grateful to have it.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, keeps harping on the fact that people do not ask for their coal to be weighed, and I keep harping on the fact that they would if they knew the scales were there. If local authorities were to insert in a local newspaper a short advertisement, to the effect that a customer was entitled to have his or her coal weighed, we should see a very different state of affairs.

LORD DERWENT

They have had this Act, and local authorities have done this, since 1889. If people still do not know, I do not know how we are going to teach them.

LORD STONHAM

Naturally, I am glad that the noble Lord is going to have another look at this, but I must say that his attitude to this matter rather shocks me. I do not say that in any censorious way, but I wanted him to know because I have a great respect for him and for the way in which he is dealing with this Bill. I must tell him the way it appears to me. He is saying, in effect, to the housewife "If you do not insist on your coal being weighed, the bigger fool you". I think that is a very wrong attitude for the Government to take in a Weights and Measures Bill which is designed for the protection of the consumer. Indeed, he has almost said in terms, "Because of my view, I do not accept that the housewife is using this provision sufficiently, and therefore we shall take away this safeguard." That is precisely what this Bill proposes to do. I do not accept that the weighing machine is worth two sacks of coal for room. You might just as well argue that the trolley used to move sacks of coal is equivalent to one sack of coal. In practice they stick a trolley on the lorry, so that it does not take up any room at all. I am quite sure they do the same thing with the weighing machine. Even if it did, the protection of the consumer in a Weights and Measures Bill is the important thing,

The noble Lord has said to me that if I produce information that the customers value this safeguard he will look at it again.

LORD DERWENT

I really must stop the noble Lord misquoting me time and again. I did not say that. I said that I would look at this again and would be grateful if the noble Lord would give me further information and evidence. The noble Lord has misquoted me three times in one short paragraph.

LORD STONHAM

That must be a record, but I did not do it intentionally. I was giving the impression which the noble Lord's words gave me. He indicated that he wanted and would welcome information about this. The noble Lord is asking for information from customers. What am I to do? Am I to get up a petition, or bring housewives up in a body to the House of Lords?

LORD DERWENT

If there is any evidence inspectors would have it.

LORD STONHAM

That is all right. I have been giving evidence of the inspectors on this matter, and I have quoted a number of prosecutions in the great city of Birmingham. But I assure the noble Lord I will accept his invitation. I will provide him with a volume of evidence on this subject in support of the Amendment, and I trust that when we again raise this matter on Report he will be convinced by the evidence, and by the case, and will accept the Amendment which we shall then move. Meanwhile, in view of the noble Lord's assurance that he will look at the matter again, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.7 p.m.

LORD STONHAM moved, in paragraph 5, to add to sub-paragraph (1): ( ) for securing that where the solid fuel consists of coal made up in containers in the quantity of one and a quarter hundredweight is sold or kept or exposed for sale on a vehicle, coal made up in containers in any other quantity shall not be carried on the vehicle or on any vehicle attached thereto.

The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Hughes, I beg to move Amendment 62AA, and I would ask for the noble Lord's indulgence, as I understand that this is a matter of particular application to Scotland.

My understanding of the matter—and the information has been supplied by my noble friend—is that it is the desire of weights and measures inspectors in Scotland to secure a continuance of the protection which is at present enjoyed by purchasers under local coal by-laws in areas where sales and deliveries of 1 cwt. and 1¼ cwt. sacks of coal are regularly practised. The experience of enforcement by inspectors of weights and measures has demonstrated that sacks of coal exposed for sale on a vehicle must be made up only in specified quantities which are sufficiently widely spaced for ease of visual identification, to avoid either errors in supply or the facilitation of the perpetration of fraud.

It is in casual sales of coal in quantities not exceeding 2 cwt. from a vehicle that protection is most needed, and it is in this type of sale, we submit, the provisions in the Bill are weakest, particularly so following the decision at Report stage in another place to allow 1¼ cwt. to be one of the specified quantities. The restriction on the use of 1¼ cwt. as a specified quantity need only apply in the case of coal, since the other solid fuels referred to in the Bill are more bulky, making it impracticable to load 1¼ cwt. into sacks used for solid fuel deliveries, and the merchants in the areas where 1 cwt. and 1¼ cwt. are in use are, in general, particular in selecting only sack sizes suitable for the two quantities for specified goods. The restriction which would be imposed by the Amendment on sales of coal allows for the merchant to expose for sale on the vehicle a variety of solid fuels, such as coke, Sunbrite, Coalite, briquettes and so on, to meet the composite needs of his customers and avoid making separate deliveries of specific solid fuels. In certain areas, particularly the North East of Scotland, the 1¼ cwt. specified quantity of coal with a realistic limitation in its use is accepted as an economic form of delivery by consumers, merchants and by the trade unions whose members are employed in retail distribution of solid fuel.

As I mentioned in introducing this Amendment, this is a difficulty which it is desired to meet by the giving of powers to make local by-laws, and it is one which occurs mainly in the northern part of Scotland, where, of course, distances are great, road deliveries are great, and where it is important to have the opportunity to supply not only specified quantities, 1 cwt. and 1¼ cwt. in a sack, but also on the same lorry, and often for the same customer, these other fuels I have mentioned.

LORD DERWENT

I wonder whether while he is moving this Amendment, the noble Lord would consider dealing also with 63A, because it deals with a kindred subject. I should be grateful.

LORD STONHAM

I will certainly do that in order to save time, if your Lordships agree, but I feel the two points are not precisely similar; that is why I did not immediately say so. But I am glad to know that that will suit your Lordships' convenience, and I will deal with Amendment 63A dealing with the carriage of solid fuel by road. The object of Amendment 63A is to ensure that paragraph 11, sub-paragraph (1), does not prohibit composite deliveries of coal and other bulky smokeless fuels, thereby adding to the cost of delivery and causing inconveniences to buyers. At present in areas where 1 cwt. and 1¼ cwt. sacks are in use in respect of deliveries exceeding 2 cwt. no difficulties of enforcement are experienced, where 1¼ cwt. sacks are used for coal, and 1 cwt. sacks are used for more bulky smokeless fuels. In such areas where merchants use 1¼ cwt. sacks for coal, the same size of sack will hold only 1 cwt. of the more bulky smokeless fuels, and it is not a practicable proposition to deliver 1¼ cwt. amounts of coke, Coalite, et cetera.

As I have mentioned, in the North-East of Scotland the delivery area extends for perhaps sixty miles radius round the city of Aberdeen, and often to remote areas where orders for coke or smokeless fuel are only a minor part of the customer's composite order of coal and of smokeless fuel; and it is strongly felt by merchants, by trade unions and others engaged in retail deliveries, and by consumers, that a customer who uses both types of fuel should be able to have the composite delivery at one and the same time, thereby keeping delivery costs to a minimum—and over such distances, of course, they will be quite high—thus reducing the cost to all concerned and encouraging consumers to make the best use of all varieties of solid fuel available at any particular time or season. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 84, line 22, at end insert the said sub-paragraph.—(Lord Stonham.)

9.15 p.m.

LORD DERWENT

This is a fairly complicated subject, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for having taken these two Amendments together. I will deal with them as he did, separately, although various points apply to both. May I say that I cannot accept these Amendments. The explanation is fairly lengthy, but I will try to be as brief as I can. The first would empower local weights and measures authorities to make by-laws for securing that where coal, made up in containers in quantities of 1¼ cwt., is sold, kept or exposed for sale on a vehicle, no other quantities shall be carried on that vehicle. That is the Amendment. With regard to this particular point, one of the primary purposes of this Bill—and it is a most important purpose—is to secure uniformity in the law throughout the country. The whole question of weights and measures has got into a terrible mess over the years, and we are trying to simplify it and to get the law somewhat more uniform.

As noble Lords will appreciate from the extensive repeals in Part III of Schedule 9, there is a vast amount of local legislation in the country at present which causes confusion and frustration to traders and others. This is particularly the case with by-laws relating to the sale of coal made under the Weights and Measures Act, 1889. There is a horrible mix-up under that Act, and one of the objects of this Bill is to get rid of these differing by-laws and to have uniform requirements relating to the whole of the country set out in the Bill. I am informed that among other things it will also stop a great deal of Private Bill legislation. As I said in dealing with Amendment No. 61, the power for local authorities to make by-laws relating to the price of fuel is quite exceptional, and we think it would be wrong to extend this power beyond this limited field. That is the first Amendment.

The object of the second Amendment is quite different, but I am speaking to them together because they deal with the same sort of subject. It is to restrict the application of the proviso in the last five lines of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 11 of Schedule 6 to coal instead of to all solid fuel. That is the second Amendment. The proviso states that solid fuel may be carried on a vehicle in 1¼ cwt. sacks only if all the sacks on the vehicle are of 1¼ cwt. That is what the proviso says under the Bill. To limit the proviso in this way and thus to allow mixed loads of 1¼ cwt. of coal and 1 cwt. of other fuels, which is what the Amendment would do, would defeat the whole object of the provision, which is to prevent fraud, or mistakes, by passing off a 1 cwt. sack as containing 1¼ cwt. The Bill prevents that.

The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on previous clauses of the Bill has had a great deal to say about the prevalence of fraudulent trading. He may have exaggerated a little, but it certainly goes on. With all respect, I must say that this Amendment would make fraud quite easy. The driver of a lorry carrying 1 cwt. and 1¼ cwt. sacks will, as his delivery round proceeds, have empty 1 cwt. and 1¼ cwt. sacks on his lorry. If a customer complains that only four sacks were emptied into his bin and he ordered 5 cwt., the driver may claim that he delivered four 1¼ cwt. sacks when he in fact delivered four 1 cwt. sacks, and point to the empties on his lorry as evidence. Therefore, calling up an inspector after that would not help very much. But if the Bill is left as it is there is no open invitation to fraud because, irrespective of the type of fuel he is carrying on the lorry, he can only carry 1¼ cwt. sacks. We believe that if the Amendment were carried it would not only make fraud easy but in certain cases it might be an invitation to fraud. It is a question of the empty sacks, not the full ones.

Under the provision as it is at present drafted the merchants will be free to use whatever size they prefer, 1 cwt. or 1¼ cwt., provided that they do not carry both sizes on the same vehicle. If they wish to deliver mixed loads of coal and other solid fuel from the same lorry they can use 1 cwt. sacks for both—they would not then be able to use cwt. sacks for that coal. We believe that this provision will stop fraud, and that the Amendment would make fraud rather too easy.

EARL ALEXANDER of HILLSBOROUGH

I must say that there was some reasonableness about some aspects of the reply, but I am rather concerned with the possible increases in costs of delivery. You will remember that last night I said something about the increased costs of delivery. There are, of course, coal businesses of various sizes. One might well be able to follow this kind of arrangement in a very large firm with a dozen or maybe twenty or more lorries, but it may be a different matter if a man has only one or two lorries. Because of the size of his orders he will have to take out 1¼ cwt. sacks for the ordinary coal deliveries, and then go back again to pick up the 1 cwt. sacks. Thus, having to make two journeys, especially during some seasons of the year, will be a hardship upon the smaller man. I do not know whether the noble Lord has consulted with the National Coal Merchants' Association over this matter.

There is something in the other part of what Lord Derwent says: that is to say that one could deliver all one had to deliver in 1 cwt. batches. So you would reduce the present practice, which was in the mind of my noble friend Lord Hughes, of having a regular weight of 1¼ cwt. for certain types of fuel. I should like to think about this again. I do not know what my noble friend will say about it; I have not consulted him. I think that we ought to know whether there has been consultation with the Association.

LORD DERWENT

I am grateful to the noble Earl.

We have, among other things, consulted some of the local authorities who allow the use of both types of sack. They have agreed with us that if one allows both types of sack on the same lorry it makes fraud very easy. They suggest that it might become prevalent. We were confirmed in our view when we consulted them. The coal merchants' federations have been consulted and have not objected to the present draft.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I should have thought it was much easier for the customer to be able to detect and appreciate a difference of a ¼ cwt. in the size of the sack. I dare say that many noble Lords have seen the tendency, due to the worker, to change from the heavier weights. We have had years of trade delivery of sacks of 2¼ cwt. in weight, and to-day the modern trade unionist does not want to handle that sort of load. There is a very great increase in the use of, say 3-bushel bags, and you can easily tell the difference between the 3-bushel bag and the 2¼ cwt. bag. I should have thought that, even with the lower margin of just a ¼ cwt., you could distinguish fairly well between the two bags.

LORD DERWENT

Unfortunately this is a trade in which—I will not say fraud is very prevalent but at any rate it occurs fairly often. What often happens is that coal is put into a shed or somewhere, and then the customer says, "Look here, this is obviously less than last time." Then what I think will happen if there is any fraud is that the driver will say, "No, there is the same number of empty sacks. You have had the same amount." Of course it is very difficult, with an empty sack, for the uninitiated to tell exactly, without a great deal of trouble, and possibly some annoyance, what has been in chat sack. I think it is very unwise, and the local authorities who allow both agree with us.

LORD STONHAM

I think my noble Leader is right in saying that the refusal of these Amendments is likely to make coal delivery in those areas of Scotland much more expensive and much more difficult. But I think it would be quite wrong for me to pursue the discussion now. I am quite sure that my noble friend will read carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Derwent has said, and quite obviously we may well have to come back to the point again on the next stage. Because although the noble Lord said that he consulted the local authorities, it was not clear that the local authorities in Scotland had been precisely consulted, and as I understand it they are the people concerned in these two Amendments. We have had a good discussion and the point can be considered again in the light of that discussion. Meanwhile I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.28 p.m.

LORD STONHAM

On behalf of my noble friend I would very briefly move Amendment No. 63. The object of this Amendment is to enable action to be taken directly against carters and loaders in respect of fraudulent practices, without necessarily involving an employer who might have no idea that fraud was going on. In the discussion on a previous Amendment the noble Lord referred to the Weights and Measures Act, 1889, of which I understood he is proposing by this Bill to make a clean sweep. The precise words used in this Amendment occur in Section 23 of the Act of 1889, and indeed in local legislation. This is another of the things which would be repealed by this Act, but we are proposing to insert it here as it is regarded as a provision of value in the prevention of fraud. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 84, line 36, after ("fuel") insert ("or wilfully does any other act by which the seller or the buyer of the solid fuel is or may be defrauded").—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD DERWENT

Paragraph 6 of Schedule 6, to which this Amendment relates, makes it an offence for any person, with intent to defraud or deceive, to damp any solid fuel, and the Amendment would further make it an offence for anyone wilfully to do any other act by which the seller or the buyer of the solid fuel is, or may be, defrauded. I assume it is intended that the Amendment should relate only to acts leading to fraud as to quantity. Clause 24(2) of the Bill already makes it an offence for any person on or in connection with the sale or purchase of any goods, or in exposing or offering any goods for sale, or in purporting to make known to the buyer thereof the quantity of any goods sold, or in offering to purchase any goods to do any act—any act—calculated to mislead the person buying or selling the goods as to the quantity thereof. Thus, in respect of quantity the Bill goes as far, in my view, as it is right and proper to go. This Amendment does, in fact, go wider, in making an offence of an act which may defraud a seller or buyer, even though it does not in fact so defraud. The doer, it may be, had no intention of defrauding. I hope the Committee will agree that in this respect the Amendment goes too far. If actual fraud occurs, it is already covered by the Bill; but this Amendment says "may" be defrauded. He may not have any intention. We think it is going much too wide.

I must also ask if it is intended that the Amendment should relate to frauds unconnected with the quantity; because, if so again it goes too far. An act by which the purchaser was defrauded as to the quality of the fuel or as to delivery date, for instance, would be outside the scope of this Bill, which deals only with quantity. So I think that one must assume it is dealing only with quantity, and we think in that respect it goes too far. I would add that the wording the noble Lord has in this Amendment follows that of a number of local Acts relating to the sale of solid fuel; but, of course, Clause 24 of this Bill has no counterpart in those Acts. In this Bill fraud is dealt with in Clause 20. I would point out that by subsection (3) of that clause it is an offence for any person, be he the driver of a vehicle, the person in charge of the equipment or anyone else, to commit any fraud in connection with any, or in connection with any purported, weighing or measuring by means of public weighing or measuring equipment. Our view is that the Amendment goes too far, and I think I have made my case clear on that. Other Acts have gone almost as far, but they have not had in them the safeguarding clauses which this Bill has, in particular, Clause 24.

LORD STONHAM

I am not convinced that the Amendment goes too far, but we are in imminent danger of going on too long. I therefore propose to read to-morrow what the noble Lord has said, and perhaps come back to it again. Meanwhile, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Part I, as amended, agreed to.

Part II agreed to.

Part III [Carriage of solid fuel by road]:

LORD FARINGDON, moved to add to paragraph 11: (6) If the vehicle is carrying relevant goods for delivery after sale or for the purpose of exposing or offering such goods for sale, those goods shall be made up in containers. Provided that this sub-paragraph shall not apply:

1. (a) where the vehicle is constructed or adapted for the mechanical making-up in containers of the fuel carried thereon and incorporates weighing equipment approved by the Board for that purpose or
2. (b) to any solid fuel supplied under the arrangements specified in paragraph 3(2)(a) of this Schedule.

If this sub-paragraph is contravened, the seller shall be guilty of an offence.

The noble Lord said: I will very briefly move this Amendment, which is a rather important one. This part of the Schedule is, I think, rather seriously defective, and indeed retrograde, in that it permits solid fuel (and, in passing, perhaps the noble Lord could tell me exactly why, in this Part of the Schedule, "solid fuel" suddenly becomes "relevant goods"; I feel that this is a point which would interest the noble Lord, Lord Conesford) carried in a vehicle in bulk to be weighed up subsequently in small quantities by coal carters, either in the street or on the premises of the buyer. In most cases this kind of weighing is, in fact, done in the street, and often when the buyer is not at home. The procedure which it is proposed to permit provides endless opportunities for dishonesty. Indeed, it is one of the most serious troubles in the distribution of coal. Moreover, it is a kind of dishonesty which is extremely difficult to detect; the only way in which it can generally be detected is by laying a trap. This is a difficult and not very desirable procedure.

Many local authorities have already, under their powers, passed by-laws and local legislation requiring coal for delivery to more than one buyer to be carried in sacks each containing specific quantities. Such legislation has, in practice, worked extremely well and it is thought in the interests of the purchasing public that similar requirements should be embodied in the present Bill. The Bill as drafted completely relaxes control, except for the requirement to sell by weight, over coal carried on vehicles and not specifically appropriated to a sale or agreement to sell before the vehicle commences its journey. The Amendment proposes specifically to exclude miners' allowances of coal. Though for the most part such allowances cannot be regarded as sales, it is thought this is a very reasonable precaution. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 86, line 29, insert the said sub-paragraph.—(Lord Faringdon.)

LORD DERWENT

I hope I have four reasons that the noble Lord will find adequate why this Amendment will not do. There are a number of cases beyond the two mentioned in the Amendment where it is necessary to allow fuel to be carried loose: first, bulk deliveries where the whole load of the vehicle is going to one buyer. A great deal of solid fuel is carried in this way: for example, road deliveries from the mines to the merchants, or deliveries to large industrial users. These bulk deliveries are not generally bagged and it would be pointless and appallingly wasteful to require them to be bagged. Secondly, solid fuel which, to the knowledge of the seller, is to be loaded into a ship before delivery is exempt by virtue of paragraph 11(5) of this Schedule from the requirement that it shall be carried to the ship in sacks. If I understand this Amendment correctly this exemption would go. Thirdly, it would prevent the use of one type of delivery vehicle in which coal is carried loose in compartments—this is important—and delivered loose by means of a chute from the vehicle straight into the buyer's fuel store. This promises to be an economical and efficient method which the Bill should not prohibit.

Finally, the Amendment would prevent small hawkers from carting loose coal for retail sale at the premises of the buyer and weighing it in front of the buyer. This is often a convenient way in which the buyer whose means or fuel space are limited can buy small quantities of coal, and it would not be in the consumers' interests to hinder it. If the hawker had to carry all his fuel in sacks he would have to guess the likely demand for different quantities before he set out for the day and, in the event, might well be unable or unwilling to meet the particular demands of his customers who might want very small amounts, say 14 lb. of coal or perhaps 5s. worth. All these perfectly necessary things will be prohibited under this Amendment. I cannot in view of that accept this Amendment.

LORD FARINGDON

I confess the noble Lord seems to have made a very good case. If he will allow me, I will look at his reply more carefully in Hansard. He has not told me why "solid fuel" is "relevant goods" in this case.

LORD DERWENT

I thought the noble Lord was going to ask the noble Lord, Lord Conesford.

LORD FARINGDON

No. I was sure he would be interested in the answer, and perhaps together we might move an Amendment to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Part III agreed to.

Part IV:

Carriage of solid fuel by rail

16. As soon as the loading has been completed and the seller has ascertained the weight of the vehicle with its load and the identity of the consignee, the seller shall cause to be attached to the vehicle a document stating— (a) the name of the seller and the place and date of loading;

9.40 p.m.

LORD STONHAM moved, in paragraph 16(a), to leave out "loading" and insert "weighing". The noble Lord said: The requirement in this paragraph to add the date of loading of a wagon of coal was inserted by an Amendment in another place, but this reasonable and necessary requirement would create a real and expensive difficulty for the National Coal Board. I understand that it has always been the practice to record on the wagon labels the date of despatch, and it was intended that this practice, which is an advantage to the Coal Board and to their customers, should continue. Unfortunately, the date of loading and the date of despatch of trucks are not the same. Sometimes—and I record this unhappily—there is an interval of days, and it would be highly undesirable to create a situation where every time a wagon failed to move on the date shown on the label the Coal Board would be committing the offence of making a false entry.

To add the date of despatch to the label would entail half a million additional hand-written entries every week, which would be intolerable and absurd. To get over this difficulty, my Amendment proposes that the date recorded should be the date of weighing and not the date of loading. It is customary at collieries to weigh separately a day or even a few days before coal is loaded into wagons. I trust that the Government will agree that this provision should be made as practical as possible and that they will agree to this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 87, line 25, leave out ("loading") and insert ("weighing").—(Lord Stonham.)

EARL FERRERS

This seems an admirable suggestion, and I am very happy to say that the Government accept it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Part IV, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 7 [Miscellaneous goods other than foods]:

Part I [Liquid fuel and lubricants]:

EARL FERRERS

With permission, I will take Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 together, since one is consequential on the other. Part I of the Schedule as now drafted requires liquid fuel to be sold by net weight or capacity measurement. These Amendments will allow a further alternative of sale by volume, subject to certain conditions. The reason for this proposal is that the Schedule does not make adequate provision for the sale of certain kinds of fuel gases which are compressed into liquid form for sale. Some of these gases are customarily sold by weight—Calor gas may be taken as an example—and these may continue to be sold in this way under the Schedule. But others—in particular, liquid oxygen, which is sold as fuel for rocket projects for example—are customarily sold by volume: in other words, by cubic feet, and it is convenient and useful for purchasers that they should continue to be sold in this way. We have therefore drafted the Amendments so that these gases will continue to be subject to the provisions of the Schedule, but may continue to be sold by volume or, if pre-packed, marked with an indication of quantity by volume. I should add that when fuel gases are sold by volume, the volume stated is not the amount of liquid sold but the amount of gas which will be emitted from the liquid under stated conditions of temperature and atmospheric pressure. This is the reason for the rather complicated formula at the end of the second Amendment. And your Lordships will see that contained in the Amendment is power for the Board of Trade to specify these conditions by regulation. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 89, line 23, at beginning insert ("Subject to paragraph 3 of this Part of this Schedule").—(Earl Ferrers.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL FERRERS

I beg to move Amendment No. 66.

Amendment moved—

Page 89, line 33, leave out from beginning to (" goods ") in line 34 and insert— ("3. Notwithstanding anything in paragraph 2 of this Part of this Schedule, liquid fuel—

1. (a) when not pre-packed may be sold by volume, and
844
2. (b) may be pre-packed in a container marked with an indication of quantity by volume,

being in either case the volume of the gas which would be produced from the fuel in question at such temperature and such atmospheric pressure as are specified in regulations made by the Board with respect to fuel of the type in question or, if no such regulations are in force, as may be made known by the seller to the buyer before he pays for or takes possession of the fuel; and there shall be exempted from all requirements of the said paragraph 2 ").—(Earl Ferrers.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Part I, as amended, agreed to.

Parts II and III agreed to.

Part IV:

Wood fuel

3. There shall be exempted from the requirements of paragraph 1 of this Part of this Schedule any sale of wood fuel in a quantity which does not exceed fourteen pounds or which exceeds half a ton.

9.46 p.m.

LORD STONHAM moved, in paragraph 3 to leave out "or which exceeds half a ton." The noble Lord said: As this is the last Amendment on the Committee stage, and as I have a most formidable brief on it, if the noble Lord can assure me that he will accept the Amendment without discussion, I will gladly give way. Since I gather that the olive branch is spurned, I must put the case as briefly as I can. The position of the Bill at present is that sales of wood fuel in excess of half a ton are not subject to any kind of control. When this matter was discussed in another place the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Price, said that he was prepared to consider raising the upper limit of control if honourable Members could give evidence that wood was sold regularly in large quantities in urban areas. I have here a mass of such evidence, in the form of numerous advertisements, all of it for sales of tons or more of fuel; indeed, the sale of firewood in quantities is not only increasing, but is increasing in urban areas.

In so far as my examination of the evidence which we have accumulated is concerned, the amount of fraud in the, case of sales of firewood is more widespread, barefaced and flagrant than any other fraud perpetrated with regard to the weight of any commodity. It seems to me, therefore, that for the Government to permit sales of a quantity of wood fuel in excess of half a ton—and that is not a very large quantity—completely unrestricted, well knowing that this is a vehicle for the most flagrant and barefaced frauds, is really an abdication of their responsibilities and one which we could not by any means accept.

The advertisements vary from firewood, dry split logs, kindling, Christmas logs, oak logs, firewood, logs for sale, best grade size and all kinds of advertisements for quantities of wood for burning. Our understanding—and the evidence is irrefutable—is that these are vehicles for a number of prosecutions. I have in front of me a summary of prosecutions for short-weight in wood logs in a single English county. In one area there were six successful prosecutions. In the area of this county there are 66 wood merchants dealing in bulk sales. I would mention that these numbers are approximate, and that the frauds are not easy to detect.

I also have before me a list of the weighings over a public weighbridge of wood fuel in a medium-sized county borough, and there are literally scores of these examples of large quantities—as much as 7 tons and more—in a comparatively short period. This is a substantial trade—145 loads over a single weighbridge, in a comparatively short period. It is a substantial industry, about which the Bill, as it stands, says, in effect, "We do not want to bother about control at all."

I would point out that in the original Bill we had before us two years ago, the provisions in this regard were satisfactory. I understand that since then there has been pressure from forest owners to delete this provision with regard to limiting sales of wood fuel, and the Government have succumbed to this pressure. I think they are wholly wrong, and I am astonished that the noble Lord did not immediately jump to his feet and accept my offer that he should endorse this Amendment. I will not develop the case further now, but I assure the noble Lord that we shall not be satisfied with a "No" on this occasion. We will study his words with care, and if he is not going to accept the Amendment now, we will certainly renew the charge with, I feel, confident hope of complete success on the Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 91, line 26, leave out from ("pounds") to end of line 27.—(Lord Stonham.)

9.52 p.m.

LORD DERWENT

I hope that by his last remarks the noble Lord did not mean that he is not going to listen to or to read what I say. May I start off by saying that this is not unrestricted sale of wood? The effect of this Amendment would be to bring all sales of wood fuel exceeding 14 lb. within the purview of this Part of Schedule 7. Part IV of Schedule 7 covers retail sales only and is intended to apply only to relatively small sales particularly in urban areas. The figure of half a ton for this limit is one which we believe is reasonable. If the noble Lord has any evidence to the contrary, I shall be glad to look at it.

Your Lordships will appreciate that in this matter the provisions of this Part will come into effect only where a local weights and measures authority makes a by-law for the purpose, and not otherwise. Such by-laws—and this is also important—can apply to parts of the authority's area, and need not apply to the whole of an area. That, I think, is important, particularly where there is a town area and a country area under the local authority.

LORD STONHAM

Will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? Will not these by-law-making powers to which he refers be swept away in the Bill?

LORD DERWENT

No. This, we believe, is perfectly right. The likelihood is that the powers will be used only in respect of urban areas—it would be strange if they were not—and we think that an upper limit of half a ton will cover the great bulk of the sales of wood fuel in such areas. The fact that there are many lorry loads carrying 7 tons or more is not relevant to the question. The question is whether the whole load is going to one retail buyer. If not, we remain without evidence that half a ton is not reasonable, and I think the figures the noble Lord was quoting were not on that basis. But I shall be glad to see the evidence.

We have been told that half a ton is much above the weight of individual delivery to urban households. The point is this. We do not want to interfere with the substantial sales of wood by farmers and landowners to their neighbours which is normally made by the cord or the lorry load in excess of half a ton, and which, if statutorily required to be made by weight only, would probably cease, since it would not be worth the seller's while to buy and operate weighing equipment to sell surplus wood which is fit only for fires in this way. May I also add in resisting this Amendment—and I say that I resist it only as regards the ½ ton, and if I can get other evidence that we ought to put it up to a ton I will certainly look at it—that this is not done just under pressure from forestry owners and landowners. The present provisions are as a result of an Amendment made in your Lordships' House on the previous Bill.

LORD STONHAM

I will accept the noble Lord's invitation to send him the evidence, some of which I have, but I will accumulate more of it. His other point I think is a valid one about the local sales, almost between neighbours. I think we shall be able to tackle that by dealing with it on a price basis and excluding sales of a certain kind. It will mean re-framing the Amendment to meet that particular objection. I will produce evidence between now and Report stage about urban sales and I hope we shall come to a more happy result. Meanwhile, with grateful thanks to both noble Lords opposite for their courtesy and help to us throughout the Committee stage, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Part IV agreed to.

Parts V to XII agreed to.

Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining Schedules agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported with Amendments.