HC Deb 11 February 1958 vol 582 cc350-60

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young,]

11.3 p.m.

Miss Elaine Burton (Coventry, South)

On 21st January, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, replying to me and referring to the grant given to the British Standards Institution, said: In addition to this general grant, the Board of Trade has in the current financial year given the British Standards Institution £10,000 specifically for the extension of its work on consumer protection: this now includes 'Shopper's Guide'. It is for the Institution to decide the best way of promoting the success of this publication."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1958; Vol. 580, c. 881.] In its second annual report, the Consumer Advisory Council of the British Standards Institution referred to the fact that the taxpayer had contributed £10,000 towards its costs. Tonight I want to explore whether we have received the best value for money with that £10,000.

I believe that we have not and that that is the fault, not of the B.S.I., but of the Government. I have always believed that this Consumer Advisory Council was set up by the Government as a sop to public opinion. That, of course, was before the Parliamentary Secretary was appointed to his present office.

Going back to September, 1954, I remember when the public was told that the British Standards Institution would set up the Consumer Advisory Council, and I can see the headlines now which said that we were to have a new deal for shoppers. We were told that 24 men and women were to form the Council and the public really believed that the shoppers would not only get value for money, but that they would have their complaints dealt with if that was not the case. Certainly, there was plenty for the Council to do. But alas for the shoppers' hopes.

The news of that Council did not get a very good Press. All the same, it was not easy to get letters of criticism published. As a result, we had a long period of silence and the excitement of the shoppers died down. Then, I remember very distinctly my own disappointment—I would say, even, disgust—when I read an announcement to the effect that the chief task of the Council would be to let the manufacturers know what the consumer needed. That more than anything else proved that this was indeed a sop to public opinion from the Government, because that was what some of us in the House, and some organisations outside, had been telling the manufacturers for a long time. What we wanted to know, and what the shoppers wanted to know, was what the Council would do about it.

In January, 1955, the names were announced. I do not propose to give them now but, generally speaking, there was, and there is, a wealth of experience on the Council. It is fair to say that it was drawn from the retail stores, from economics, publicity, journalism and the women's organisations. We wondered at the time why people like these should submit to nothing more ambitious than telling the manufacturer what the con sumer needed. I believe that the reason was obvious and I think that the Council had taken legal advice. That legal advice confirmed my worst fears that the Council had no powers whatever.

From 1952 to 1954, some of us had fought the Government on the matter of consumer protection. We were helped considerably by organisations outside the House. I should mention particularly the Retail Trading Standards Association. To begin with, we got very little support from either side of the House, but eventually we were proved right, so much so that the Government had to act or, at least, they had to appear to act. So we got the Consumer Advisory Council. Since 1955, I have fought hard on this matter, because I believed then, as I believe now, that this Consumer Advisory Council is Government eyewash and completely ineffective. I think I have been proved right.

I should like to refer the Parliamentary Secretary to the letter from Miss Marghanita Laski in The Times of 25th November last, in which she said: …when I joined the Consumer Advisory Council on its formation in January, 1955, I believed wholly in voluntary methods. But since then, none of the industries asked by the Council for Kitemark Schemes has agreed to one; and the children's footwear manufacturers, to whom you refer in your article, have positively refused. On 12th December, 1957, the President of the Board of Trade actually made an admission. It was not, of course, an answer that I wanted, but one is cheered when a little bit of sustenance comes from the Board of Trade. In answer to a Question of mine, the President of the Board of Trade said: The Advisory Council is disappointed with the response of some manufacturers to its proposals… That was a very great admission coming from the Board of Trade, but the President went on to say: I think that the first job of the Council, assisted by the hon. Lady, is to make the public aware of what Kitemark schemes are."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1957; Vol. 579, c. 1411–12.] I would only say—if it is not immodest to do so—that I have tried to play my part in this matter.

What is the British Standards Institution to do if manufacturers are not prepared to co-operate in these matters? It has been my contention all along that the Institution has been given an impossible task, and for that fact I blame the Government. In a letter in The Times on 30th October—I was not going into the question of legislation, with respect, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

I was listening with care to the hon. Lady, as I always do.

Miss Burton

I was about to quote a small section from the letter that I wrote to Thr Times on the question of what happens when the manufacturers are not prepared to co-operate? I said: two of the most flagrant examples are children's shoes and carpets. People studying consumer complaints have said for some time now that carpets are the main worry, yet, to quote a Sunday paper of 20th October 'A mistake in buying a carpet can be expensive. There are no manufacturers' guarantees, few fixed retail prices, too few labels, and too many bedevilling technical terms'. I have asked the Board of Trade repeatedly how we can obtain a decent standard of merchandise when the vast majority of manufacturers have to agree. Under those conditions how is it possible to obtain one at all?

As an example of the first point, some standards are too low, and as an example of the second, I have mentioned the position in regard to carpets and shoes. Could not the Parliamentary Secretary consider first, having a standard of quality worth having and not based on minimum specifications? Secondly, if we have a standard worth having, some manufacturers will have to be excluded because their standards will be too low.

I want to ask the Minister three short questions. First, would the Board of Trade be prepared to invite general proposals for quality standards in merchandise? Secondly, would it agree that the Institution shall not be tied to waiting for a majority of manufacturers to agree a standard? Thirdly, would it publicise—and I really mean publicise—any industry which refuses co-operation, so that the public may know?

I want to make one more point before I turn to the "Shopper's Guide." Will the Board of Trade consider the fact that today anyone can issue a certificate of quality for goods? I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary knows that these unofficial quality marks may offer some safeguard to shoppers, but if test criteria are not revealed, and the samples are merely those specially provided by the maker, we often get a pig in a poke. Sometimes makers use these certificates quite regardless of what they mean. One of the best examples that I have heard concerns a firm displaying its wares as tested by XYZ, which was true —but the whole truth was that they had been tested by XYZ and failed by them. That example was taken from an excellent article in the Observer of 29th December last, to which I would draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention.

I now turn to the "Shopper's Guide." Here I am asking for enlightenment. The Parliamentary Secretary told me, on 21st January, that the additional money granted for consumer protection, included "Shopper's Guide," and he went on: It is for the Institution to decide the best way of promoting the success of this publication."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1958; Vol. 580, c. 881.] I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if it is to do that by going out of business. "Shopper's Guide" has had three issues, and I offer those responsible my congratulations on those issues, but if we are honest we must admit that "Shopper's Guide" and the other magazines of the same kind cannot make adequate comparisons for the general public because of the law of libel.

This question has been raised in the House on many occasions, and I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman can help any more tonight. The Board of Trade, the Institution and I have sought counsel's opinion in this matter, and it seems that it is possible to have these magazines on the bookstalls; but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the magazines are not on the bookstalls.

I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary when the B.B.C., and much less Independent Television because of its advertising interests, will be able to give comparisons—real, live comparisons? Secondly, are the Government or the Board of Trade prepared to back the British Standards Institution with costs in any legal action which might be brought against the Institution if the "Shopper's Guide" were made available to the general public at bookstalls? Will the Government say this publicly? I have always believed that this whole question of consumer protection should be a public service, and not one financed by subscription.

Now I come, in conclusion, to the Consumer Research Association and its publication. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has no responsibility for this, but there is a good deal here which I, and many others, just do not understand. I mention this because the Parliamentary Secretary has told me that it was for the British Standards Institution to decide the best way of promoting the success of its own publication, "Shopper's Guide," but I should like to quote, briefly, just three extracts from The Times dated 9th January last. There was a column headed "Consumer Research Association" and underneath that it was stated, "Proposal for Merger." The extracts which I should like to read are: A proposal has been made by the Association for Consumer Research for amalgamation with the Consumer Advisory Council of the British Standards Institution, and this will soon be discussed by the councils on both sides. Dr. Michael Young, chairman of the council of the Association for Consumer Research, said yesterday: 'A proposal has been made by the Association to the British Standards Institution that the setting up of a new and completely independent body, as an amalgamation of the Association and the Consumer Advisory Council of the British Standards Institution should be considered.' Apparently, the proposal for an amalgamation was first mooted early in December, and it has been mentioned at a meeting of the British Standards Institution council. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether, as the Consumer Advisory Council, and the "Shopper's Guide," receive a grant from the Government, the British Standards Institution is empowered to discuss such a merger. Would the staff of the Institution be affected?

I, personally, have joined both organisations and wish them well. In fact, I have always envisaged that the two magazines would doubtless come together in some way after some time had elapsed because, after all, they are trying to do the same job; but I regard it as quite extraordinary that such a merger should be so far advanced when the British Standards Institution had published only two issues of "Shopper's Guide," and the Consumer Research Association only one issue of "Which," as was the case in December.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us, and all the subscribers who have joined both organisations, what is going on? I have tried to be very quick, but I should like to ask, as a summary, these six questions of the Board of Trade. First, will it look at the problem of quality standards in merchandise; secondly, will it agree that the British Standards Institution should not be tied to waiting for a majority of manufacturers to agree a standard; thirdly, will it publicise any industry and its manufacturers where co-operation with the British Standards Institution is refused; fourthly, will it look at the whole question of unofficial quality marks; fifthly, will it give financial backing to the British Standards Institution should any legal action arise subsequent upon "Shopper's Guide" being available to the general public on the bookstalls; and, lastly. what is the position concerning the proposed merger of the Consumer Advisory Council and "Shopper's Guide" with the Consumer Research Association?

11.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll)

The hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) has raised a number of important and interesting points in regard to the important field of consumer protection. She referred particularly to the work which the British Standards Institution has promoted in this field. As I think the hon. Lady knows full well, it is an object which has interested me a very great deal during the sixteen months that I have been at the Board of Trade.

I know the hon. Lady well enough to realise that she is capable of putting a great number of questions in a very short space of time, questions which she knows as well as I it would take far more than the few minutes available to reply to in full. I will, however, by condensing some of my replies, endeavour to cover roughly the whole of the wide field which she has covered in a very interesting speech of some quarter of an hour's length.

The first thing I should like to explain to the hon. Lady is that the British Standards Institution is an independent body. The Government do not run it. It is a grant-aided body. The Government make available a certain amount of money to it each year, but the Institution itself is responsible for the way in which it conducts its affairs. Therefore, it is not for the Board of Trade to go along and tell the Institution exactly what it is to do from day to day.

I should like to make quite plain that the money for the Institution comes not just from the Government, but also from outside subscriptions, and these are very substantial. Therefore, it is only right that the Institution should maintain an independent outlook over the whole field of its operations.

The main Government grant to the B.S.I. is matched with industrial contributions in the previous year, subject to a maximum—£130,000 in 1956–57, £140,000 in 1957–58 and £150,000 in 1958–59. I am glad to say that the industrial contributions have been so high that in the last two financial years, as previously, the maximum Government grant has been earned. Therefore, the industrial subscriber has a very substantial say on how the Institution shall spend its money.

In 1957–58, the B.S.I. was granted an additional £10,000 solely for the expansion of its work for the domestic consumer, and this was not related to industrial subscriptions. I am sorry that the hon. Lady thought fit to describe this subscription by the Government as "merely a sop". It was intended to assist in the work which the B.S.I. was developing, and I think that the money has been very well and very usefully spent. I do not think that the hon. Lady helps the cause of the B.S.I. consumer protection work by denigrating it in the House. It is doing a lot of very good work. Much of it may not attract the public eye, but that does not reduce the importance of what it is trying to achieve.

Subject to Parliamentary approval—and I hope that the news which I am about to give the hon. Lady will encourage her—it is proposed to make a Government grant in aid of £10,000 in 1958–59, that is to say, in the coming year, towards the cost of the Institution's work on behalf of the domestic consumer, in addition to the grant-in-aid for the general work of the Institution which, it has already been agreed, shall be a maximum of £150,000. Therefore, we look forward to a continuance of the work of the Institution in the consumer field.

I will now try to answer briefly all the specific points put to me with regard to it. The hon. Lady talked about stan- dards, whether they were high enough and whether manufacturers were being sufficiently co-operative. I rather detected a certain hint as though the hon. Lady would like to see compulsion introduced. But, of course, as she realises, compulsion would require legislation. The hon. Lady wisely kept the matter in the bounds of order by not going too far along the road of compulsion.

We would all like to see an extension of the Kitemark, but it would be a mistake to make it compulsory. The best way to bring about an extension of its use is for people to look for the Kitemark and to ask for Kitemarked goods. In this way, pressure could be brought to hear through the retailers, who, in turn, would urge manufacturers to bring more products within the scheme. Moreover, compulsion on consumer goods would be directly contrary to two of the most important principles governing the highly successful work of the B.S.I. on industrial goods, namely, that the use of their standards is entirely voluntary, and that standards should be issued only on a majority support from the interested parties.

I do not believe it would be right to depart from those two principles, which have proved so successful, nor do I think that a standard which was acceptable only to a small minority would really be worth publishing, because it would be used to a limited extent. Indeed, it might endanger a great deal of the work which the B.S.I. has already done if it were to depart from a practice which has been proved by the test of time.

The hon. Lady suggested that the Board of Trade should publicise any industry which refused co-operation. What good would that do? Co-operation must by its very nature remain voluntary. One cannot have such a thing as compulsory co-operation. I do not think it would be right for the Board of Trade to appear in the rôle of a whipping boy, whipping on reluctant industries into a form of co-operation which, for what might appear to them to be very good reasons, they did not wish to bring about.

The hon. Lady referred to an article in a Sunday newspaper which appeared on 29th December. I have read it with great interest. In the article a comparison was made between the B.S.I. Kitemark with its published standards and the non-statutory marks issued by some private individuals and organisations, and some reference was also made to so-called quality labels and certificates. I am in rather a difficulty here, as I am sure the hon. Lady will appreciate, because since the article was published its author and the paper which printed it have received writs for libel, and it would, therefore, clearly be inappropriate for me to make any comment at all at this stage.

While it would be out of order to discuss the possibility of legislation to limit the right to issue certificates of quality, I should like to make clear the present legal position. This is that misleading claims to most of the ascertainable characteristics of goods, such as fastness of colour or size, can already be dealt with under the Merchandise Marks Acts, whereas, on the other hand, vague claims of quality, such as "This is a better soap", or "Blank's blades are best", are not covered by existing legislation; and, indeed, it is difficult to see how any legislation which did not unreasonably limit advertisers could be made to cover such vague claims. To summarise: where the claims are specific they can be tested by means of the provisions of existing legislation; where they are vague their very vagueness makes them incapable of precise definition, and so I think it would indeed be better to leave that field to the judgment of the shopper herself.

The hon. Lady referred to "Shopper's Guide" and would like me to go along with her in certain proposals about the position of "Shopper's Guide" in the event of an action. I must make it plain to her that it would be quite impracticable for the Board of Trade to guarantee the costs of any action which might result. That must be a matter for the judgment, discretion and good sense of the B.S.I. itself. It must decide to what extent it is prepared—similar bodies must do likewise—to run the risk of bringing itself into court and must have due regard to the proper consequences, with the aid of such legal advice as it thinks appropriate to employ.

I should like to make it clear that it is not the fear of a libel action by manufacturers which prevents the B.S.I. from putting "Shopper's Guide" on general sale. As a matter of policy, the B.S.I. prefers to rely on direct distribution to associates. I was glad to learn that the hon. Lady was an associate. It is entirely a matter for it to decide how best to distribute its guide. On the point of law I am informed that if a libellous statement appeared in "Shopper's Guide", the fact that it has been distributed to associates only would not tie any real protection.

Finally, the hon. Lady raised the question of a suggested merger between ale Consumer Advisory Council of the B.S.I. and the Association of Consumer Research. I suggest that the hon. Lady is "jumping the gun" and looking too far ahead. An approach was made by the newer of the two bodies, by the managing director, I think he is called, of the organisation producing "Which" who, after only two issues, has suggested a merger. Because The Times takes it up, there is no reason to suppose that a merger must necessarily take place or that it would necessarily be a good thing. Equally, I am not saying that it would be a bad thing.

The point is that formal discussions have not taken place between the two bodies, and I am sure it would be inappropriate for me to comment on an idea which is still the subject of preliminary discussions within each body. It may be that these discussions will lead to some new development. If so, naturally, we shall be interested to learn what is proposed. In the meantime I do not think we should look seriously on this question of a merger, certainly no[...] in Parliament itself. One does not start planning a wedding because two young people—and both these bodies are still young—are thoughtfully looking at a bunch of mistletoe.

We can continue to examine the good work which the B.S.I. organisation is doing. The appearance of "Which" will undoubtedly serve to stimulate further activity by both bodies; and we can remain confident that the work of consumer protection which receives a Government grant of quite a substantial size will go forward with increasing momentum during the coming year.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.