§ Clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out ("quality") and insert ("standard of quality of any goods, according to a classification commonly used or recognised in the trade; or (ab) as to the")
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, this Amendment is not quite so simple. The Bill extends the trade descriptions to which the Acts will apply, to include, amongst others, the characteristic of quality. Your Lordships may remember that when this Bill was last before the House criticism was expressed, particularly by my noble friend, Lord Llewellin, that the term "quality" by itself was toe wide and would probably catch a genuine trade "puff," such as "Beer is best" or "Guinness is good for you"—to quote two examples used at that stage in our debates. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, also criticised the word on the ground that it was so vague that prosecutions would be discouraged by the difficulty of defining what the characteristic of quality was. Lord Lucas wanted to know by what form of comparison the accuracy of the description "first-grade quality "when applied to, say, fruit or food such as jam, or to boots and shoes and so on, was to be tested, and he suggested as more precise terms the substitution of the words "physically ascertainable and definable characteristic."
This seemed to Her Majesty's Government to deprive the Bill of a word which, as it were, sets the tone of the Bill, and to enlarge unduly the field of "trade description"; but Lord Lucas's reference to "first-grade quality" provides an example of just the sort of description as to quality which we wee trying to cover in this Bill—namely, that which indicates an accepted gradation of quality. I endeavoured, I am afraid without success, to find a formula which would indicate more apparently that what we had in 1167 mind was gradation of quality. During the Committee stage in another place, however, the Amendment, in which I am now inviting your Lordships to concur, was put forward. This was accepted by Her Majesty's Government because it retained the essential word "quality" on which we placed such value, while restricting its sense to gradation of quality commonly used or recognised. It also made clear that the genuine trade "puff" would not be affected. I hope that this Amendment will meet with the approval of the House and will satisfactorily conclude the protracted discussions which we have had on this interesting subject. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Mancroft.)
§ 3.28 p.m.
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, I do not rise to disagree with the Commons in this Amendment, but to comment, as I think Lord Lucas would have done had he been here, on the way in which this particular matter has been handled by Her Majesty's Government. Lord Mancroft has dealt very gently with events that took place here and in another place, but the fact is that the Government to-day, and the noble Lord in particular, are asking this House to agree substantially to an Amendment which they have refused to Lord Lucas. The words are not exactly the same as those of Lord Lucas's Amendment, but in substance the two Amendments are exactly the same. It is a great pity, I think, that if such an Amendment is to be approved that of Lord Lucas was not accepted in the first instance.
I know that the noble Lord gave an undertaking on the Committee stage that he would consider the matter between then and the Report stage. On the Report stage, he said that he would not be able to agree to what we wanted. But what we are now being asked to agree to is almost exactly the same thing. I do not want to hit a man when he is down—
§ LORD MANCROFTI am not down.
§ LORD SILKIN—but I hope that more attention will be paid to Amendments when put forward in this House. Having been refused them here, we should not be left in the humiliating position of 1168 having to accept them, perhaps dressed up a little, when they come from another place.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.