HC Deb 23 May 1958 vol 588 cc1693-704

12.59 p.m.

Miss Elaine Burton (Coventry, South)

I am very glad to have the chance of raising the question of consumer protection. I do not know whether the Minister would agree with me, but I think that the time has now come to take stock of the present position. I think the Parliamentary Secretary also knows that I take the point of view that we shall not get far until we get rid of the present Government, but if the hon. Gentleman is able to give me an excellent reply today he will have a chance to disabuse me of that belief.

I have wondered frequently, during the past few months, whether the Parliamentary Secretary has realised, judging by the type of reply which he consistently gives to my Questions each week, that the public believe that the Government are not on the side of the consumer. If he does not realise that, I hope he will think about it again, because that really is the case. There are many people and several organisations, besides myself, who are anxious to find out whether the Government have any plans for the future of consumer work, whether they intend to make any changes or whether they propose just to drift along as at present.

If we look at the position today, I imagine all would agree that the official consumer organisation is the British Standards Institution. The Institution has been in existence for a long time. Even by 1939 it covered a wide range of products. During the war, we needed standards for certain war materials, A.R.P. goods and utility merchandise. The ending of the Utility scheme, in April, 1952, brought a new demand for standards in furniture, textiles and clothing.

I believe that the Institution has done excellent work on the industrial side. I equally believe that on the domestic consumer side it has been hamstrung by lack of leadership from the Government and also by being denied powers which I think it needs to carry out the job properly. I would go further than that and say that with the support of a Government which really cared about the consumer, and was known to care about the consumer, and with powers to overcome the reactions of vested trade interests, of which there are some among the manufacturers, the Institution could issue many more quality marks guaranteeing high standards for the consumer.

In January, 1955, the Institution established a Consumer Advisory Council. The information given at that time was that the main work of the Council would be to keep manufacturers informed about what the consumers needed. The Council had no power, of course, and for that reason I objected to it from the very beginning. Today, we see the position that, because the Council had no power, it has not proved capable of persuading awkward manufacturers to co-operate with it when they did not wish to do so. On 13th May we managed to wring an admission from the Parliamentary Secretary that complete deadlock had been reached in respect of children's footwear.

I submit that it really was not good enough for the Parliamentary Secretary, when this matter was raised, to try to ride me off and say that he and his right hon. Friend … do not consider that compulsory standards would be the best way of serving the consumers' interests."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th May, 1958, Vol. 588, c. 196.] I am not saying they are; I am asking the hon. Gentleman what he proposes to do in a deadlock like this if he does not have a compulsory standard.

The Parliamentary Secretary must know that for years the Institution has been pursuing the matter of children's footwear with the manufacturers. I am sure he will agree that the Institution is very patient. I think that at times it is too patient. It has pursued every reasonable method of negotiation, but the answer from the industry is a flat and complete, "No".

I do not know what the Parliamentary Secretary feels, but I regard this as a test case, and I hope that the Institution does so, too. The Institution is the main consumer organisation in the country, and it receives a grant from the Government. In the interests of consumers, it states that the application of a standard to children's footwear is necessary; but the manufacturers say, "No". I ask the Government—I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not avoid the question this time—what they propose to do in this case.

Alternatively, the Institution may find that it is faced with not such a formidable opposition. It may find itself faced with only a majority of an industry objecting to what it wishes to do. I was always under the impression—I gather that I am wrong—that the Institution needed further powers in this respect.

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

Is the hon. Lady referring to legal powers?

Miss Burton

Yes; I am referring to powers which the Government could give it. I am glad to admit that I was wrong. I am now informed that the Institution does not need additional powers to co-operate with a minority in an industry when a standard is desired by the Institution. If that is the case, then, even bearing in mind the difficulties, I think the Institution could have done more in this respect.

I want to be fair. I know of an example—the Parliamentary Secretary may know of more—where the Institution decided to go ahead with a minority in an effort to produce a standard. All went well for some little time until majority pressure was brought to bear on the minority, and then the minority help just fell by the wayside. I suggest that if, at that time, we had had in power a Government which was known to support the Institution fully in what it is trying to do, the pressure might not have had that result.

If the Institution is to continue as the main consumer organisation, then, first, the Government must enable it to deal with deadlocks such as have arisen over children's footwear. I would say hastily, in passing, that I see nothing else for it but legislation. I shall await the Parliamentary Secretary's viewpoint on that. I know that I should be out of order in pursuing it now. Secondly, I think that the Government must very emphatically support the Institution when it wishes to proceed and when it has only a minority of an industry willing to help it.

Leaving that dangerous ground, I wish to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary something else which, I think, would greatly strengthen the hands of the Institution if it could be done. We all know that the funds of the Institution are contributed equally from three sources—from the Government, from industry and from the sale of its publications. On its domestic consumer side the Institution has its consumer advisory council and its publication, Shoppers' Guide; and currently the Government are giving an additional grant of £10,000 to the Institution for the development of the domestic consumer side. In addition, when I made inquiries two or three weeks ago I learned that about 28,000 people had joined the Institution as associates and were paying 10s. a year to receive Shoppers' Guide and the benefit of advice on consumer problems.

I do not know whether these rumours have reached the Parliamentary Secretary, but I have heard them from various sources. I have heard that we are now reaching the stage when certain manufacturers might be objecting to their goods being adversely criticised in Shoppers' Guide. As the industries of those manufacturers make grants to the Institution, I need not emphasise to the Parliamentary Secretary that a very difficult position might arise. I do not for one moment believe that the Institution would allow what it says in Shoppers' Guide to be influenced in any way by a financial grant—I want to make that clear—but I feel that we cannot leave the matter where it is.

If the rumours to which I am referring are without foundation now, I do not believe that they will be without foundation in the immediate future. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that to deal with this we might consider the possibility of, apparently, separating the domestic consumer side from the Institution itself. I said, "apparently" because there must be links between the two. I shall come to those presently. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that if the domestic consumer side were to be removed geographically from the Institution, if a new Consumer Council were to be set up, if this Council had the job of recommending to the B.S.I. what consumer standards were necessary, if Shoppers' Guide were published by the Consumer Council and if consumer advice and help on complaints came from there, there is no reason why this whole domestic consumer side should not exist on the £10,000 grant from the Government, plus the sale of its publications, plus probably a grant from B.S.I. for its help in the domestic consumer field.

I believe that an arrangement like that would leave the whole domestic consumer section of B.S.I. much freer in dealing with awkward manufacturers. I believe that what I have called this domestic consumer section should affiliate to B.S.I., because it is essential that expert opinion in the Institution could be utilised. Indeed, under it I would still see B.S.I. being responsible for the preparation of standards. That is my first suggestion.

My second suggestion is this. Frequently in the House, many of us on this side have tried to raise day-to-day problems of great importance to the ordinary shopper, not only with the Board of Trade, but with other Departments. Today, unfortunately, we do not have time to go into them all. I will cite only four obvious examples to the Parliamentary Secretary.

First, for example, we have what I call this swindle of "monster", "giant", "extra-large" and "super-packet" descriptions of sizes of packets which bear no relation whatever to the actual content. Secondly, we have the necessity for the actual weight content of packages to be stated on the outside of all packets. Thirdly, we have the advisability of guarantees and certification marks which are advertised to the public being adequately registered and inspected. Lastly—I have not raised this with the Parliamentary Secretary, but I have raised it with the Ministry of Works—we have the possible duplication and the waste of money which is entailed by the fact, for example, that the grant-aided research organisations of the D.S.I.R., of whom there are about 45, the nationalised industries of gas, electricity and solid fuel, are all doing testing and research into consumer problems.

I am quite sure that I am correct in saying that the results of those tests made by the other organisations are not given to B.S.I. I cite B.S.I. because it is the main consumer organisation. The Parliamentary Secretary must be as well aware as I am that public money is being wasted. The D.S.I.R. is doing research, the consumer councils of the nationalised industries are doing research and B.S.I. is doing it. I believe that that research is duplicated and should be done by one organisation or the results obtained by each made available to all.

How are matters like that to be taken care of? I should like to be helpful to the Parliamentary Secretary by suggesting to him how this might be done. We all know that a lot of consumer work has been going on for many years, but that a good deal of it has been loose and disjointed. As Members of Parliament, we well know that some of our constituents do not even know that it exists and there are others who do not have the faintest notion of where to go to get their views expressed in the right quarter.

I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that we—that is, Parliament—might create what I have called a powerful, publicly-financed body, although I do not much like that description, which, not by legislation—I am merely putting the suggestion to the hon. Gentleman to see what he thinks——

Mr. Erroll

It is bound to require legislation.

Miss Burton

—might investigate this. It will not require legislation to investigate. This body should deal with consumer protection and education. It should co-ordinate all this general consumer work which is now being done. I am not wedded to the name, but I have called it a National Consumer Centre. I do not mind what the Parliamentary Secretary calls it, but I should like to give him six functions which I think it should include.

The first function is that it would be the national centre for receiving complaints from individuals and organisations about goods bought and sold in shops. Secondly, it would be empowered, in place of or with the Board of Trade, to initiate prosecutions under existing legislation wherever this might be called for. Thirdly, it would advise the Government as to further measures that might be necessary for the protection of consumers, including what quality standards were needed.

Fourthly, it would operate a testing and rating service, making use of the many first-class testing organisations in operation today, and it would make the results known to a mass audience. Fifthly, it would publicise the marks and quality standards already agreed to and make known to the public what legal safeguards exist. Sixthly, it would work closely with the B.S.I., the consumer councils of the nationalised industries and the various voluntary bodies, exchange information with them and help them in general with their work.

One of its most important tasks——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche)

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but in an Adjournment debate one cannot go into a proposal even for an inquiry if the ultimate remedy is legislation. The hon. Lady has trespassed a little in that direction.

Miss Burton

Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Any work which is done for the consumer needs adequate publicity. The Parliamentary Secretary would, I think, agree that it is no use having any measures for consumer protection unless they are generally and adequately known. One of the drawbacks of the work of B.S.I. which I hope that the new Centre would rectify, would be to provide much better publicity to a mass audience. I am grateful for your kindness, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have now almost finished.

If we had this National Consumer Centre, the whole domestic consumer side of B.S.I. would disappear, because that work would be done by the National Consumer Centre, although B.S.I. would still be responsible for standards. A Minister would have to be made responsible, but the main point would be to ensure that the National Consumer Centre had as much power and independence as possible.

I told the Parliamentary Secretary in advance the points that I intended to make, because I was anxious that he would not spend a lot of his time, as he did on the last occasion, replying to points I had not made. That is wasteful when only a short time is available. I thought that if I let him know in advance what I was going to say he would let me know whether he was in agreement and would give me a real answer, but that if he did not agree with me he would offer alternative suggestions. I believe that a step forward must now be taken. Are we to strengthen B.S.I., or to have a new organisation? What do the Government propose?

1.8 p.m.

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

May I seek the leave of the House to speak again to reply to the interesting and vivid speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton). The hon. Lady referred a good deal to consumer protection, but I am inclined to think that what we need is some form of protection for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade from the hon. Lady's repeated but charming onslaughts on what is, we are all agreed, a most important subject.

I will do my best to give the hon. Lady the direct answers as she requests. She has, of course, displayed considerable agility in skirting round the ban on Adjournment debates being occasions when one may refer to legislation. I may not be quite as skilful as the hon. Lady in similarly skirting round the subject and, at the same time, giving her the direct answers which she requires.

The hon. Lady referred to the question of Government approach. She suggested that the Government had one method of approaching these matters, and that if something was not done about it the consumer would lose faith in the Government and would prefer the methods of her own party.

At the next General Election, the public will remember the Conservative Government as the Government that removed all rationing and controls and restored consumer choice and got the public away from the rationing, controls and allocation schemes of which they were heartily tired. Our present-day policy stems from the concept of housewives' choice and not the concept, which is so dear to the hon. Lady and members of her party, that the man in Whitehall knows best.

The hon. Lady's proposal is simply a proposal for another Government organisation telling everybody how to manage their own affairs. We believe that the public are the best judges of what they want and what they wish to pay. We believe, furthermore, in the principle of free competition, a principle which ensures choice and quality. It is remarkable how quickly the public appreciate changes in price and changes in quality.

Earlier this week the House heard a statement by my right hon. Friend about butter. Only a few years ago butter was rationed. The remarkable thing is that in so short a time there is now so much butter that some housewives are going over entirely to the use of butter. The difference of a few pence in the price of a pound of butter compared with a pound of margarine has resulted in one chain of shops deciding not to sell margarine at all.

The public are much more sensitive and alert to the value it receives for money spent than the hon. Lady appreciates. We take our stand on public choice. We believe that we should create conditions in which the public should have free choice, guided and aided always where necessary by the retail shopkeeper, who himself desires to sell worthwhile goods and to advise his customers, where appropriate, what goods the customer should purchase.

The hon. Lady referred particularly to high standards which the B.S.I. might work out and which should be adhered to. I ask her to consider where that line of thought would lead her if it were put into practice. If it is to be a compulsorily high standard—I presume she is not interested in low standards—a large number of manufacturers would not be able to manufacture to that standard, so the goods would not be available in sufficient quantities in the shops.

If the B.S.I. had power to guarantee high standards for the consumer and the manufacturer was not prepared to manufacture to that high standard, no legislation would secure such a situation. So it is essential that B.S.I. should proceed by agreement in this matter and not consider the proposals of the hon. Lady for more compulsive methods, however tempting that may be.

The hon. Lady made a great deal about the deadlock reached in the matter of children's footwear. I think she would be wrong in saying that because we have one deadlock we have to think out everything afresh. I would remind her that one should never generalise from only one example. The B.S.I. is making good progress with the Consumers Advisory Council on other matters.

Miss Burton

Could the hon. Gentleman tell us what is being done about children's footwear?

Mr. Erroll

Yes, I am glad to be able to tell her that the Consumers Advisory Council has referred it to a committee to consider, as possibly she is already aware. I wonder whether the hon. Lady realises that there are no fewer than 172 British standards for consumer goods already and Kite mark schemes are in operation in 45 of them, involving more than 700 licences. I have a list of those standards and Kite mark schemes and can send her a copy.

Miss Burton

I have one.

Mr. Erroll

I thought that the hon. Lady might have the information, but it is important that it should be given in the House so that the public should not get a false impression, or an inadequate impression, to what is being done.

There is a very real difficulty over children's footwear in that some manufacturers felt that their standards were much better than the standard which had been proposed. They would not like to see their standard, which they regarded as higher, being denigrated by a standard less high. I think that that is a mistaken view, because the marketing of any product with the B.S.I. Kite mark would in no way detract from the extra quality a manufacturer may care to put into his product. We must not make too much out of one deadlock. I think that it would be quite wrong to suggest that we should make sweeping changes as a result of this one experience. Although it may be unfortunate, this one experience may prove a very valuable one for all those engaged in this work and enable them to work out schemes very efficaciously in future.

The hon. Lady raised so many points that it would be difficult to do justice to them all. I hope that she will not say that I have not tried to answer them all. She referred particularly to certain aspects of consumer goods and what she called "the swindle of the monster packet." We do not regard that as a swindle, nor necessarily as a piece of good trading. This is a field where competition can operate. If one does not like to buy a monster packet one can buy a packet sold by some other producer.

If the hon. Lady says that the advertising makes the price unnecessarily high, it is open to manufacturers to produce moderately-sized packets with greater value. It is open to anyone, the C.W.S. for example, to produce packets unadorned by adjectives such as "monster" or "giant" and to try to persuade the housewife to buy what ought to be better value for money. I suspect that what the housewife actually buys in terms of contents is a very good "buy". My belief is that the housewife is a fairly shrewd buyer and that so long as she has the choice she will decide for herself by personal experience the best "buy" she can get.

We are doing something about the weight content of packets, when pre-packed foodstuffs and quick-frozen foodstuffs are concerned. Regulations are in course of preparation and, in due course, will be laid before the House. We cannot deal with weight content of non-food items without legislation, which, of course, the hon. Lady will not expect me to refer to now.

With reference to grant-aided research organisations, the hon. Lady must please try to learn to appreciate that just because a body is grant-aided that does not—I repeat "not"—mean that the Government should interfere excessively in its day-to-day operation and management. We accept responsibility for answering Questions in the House relating to B.S.I. because it is grant-aided, but, because we make a grant that does not mean that we should exercise day-to-day control over research. The same applies to other grant-aided research organisations. The hon. Lady suggested that this looks like a muddling, overlapping and wasteful system and it would be better if it were co-ordinated into one large national consumer council.

We do not believe in that way of doing things. There are a number of bodies, some enjoying support from public funds and some independent of Government assistance, which are employed on work which, in various ways, helps to protect the public. We prefer this competition, or emulation, between different bodies since it helps the consumer to pick a way for himself or herself in these matters and to pick and choose between advisers, just as he picks and chooses between the goods offered for sale.

My answer to the hon. Lady is that her approach is fundamentally different from ours. Our approach, which is positive, has been successful in the past. I believe that the public will be glad to remember it as a successful policy when the next Election comes.