HC Deb 20 March 1959 vol 602 cc837-68

2.30 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey (Sunderland, North)

I beg to move, That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to review the present safeguards to protect the consumer and to ensure that they are effective; to encourage organisations seeking to assist the consumer and improve standards and to provide, where necessary, further safeguards. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Usborne) for the step that he has taken. though I do not know whether I am more obliged to him or to hon. Members opposite who had intended to appose the Motion. However, I think that the step which has been taken is one which meets the convenience of the House.

I turn now to the important subject raised in my Motion. I would apologise in anticipation by saying that I do not intend to make an amusing speech. It has become conventional to make an amusing speech on this subject. It is in fact rather a prosaic subject. I am precluded from taking such a course, because, as I have previously confessed, I enjoy flamboyant advertising and do not object to my children getting plastic space ships with breakfast cereals provided that there is no risk of their consuming the space ships with the cereals. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the additional expense?"] The expense is a matter that we can consider for ourselves, but if it makes the breakfast more enjoyable it is something for which we can pay if we want to.

If consumer protection is to be effective, I believe that it must depend upon the good will of manufacturers, distributors and retailers. I do not want unduly to upset anyone; I want the utmost cooperation. We are discussing something which is becoming of increasing importance and is much mare widely recognised than even a few years ago. I do not want to be very controversial. I hope to elicit a reasonably constructive reply from the Minister. Before I approach the main suggestion that I want to make. I must say that I recognise the Minister's difficulties in that the Conservative Party is rather doctrinaire about these matters and we have to recognise that we are dealing here with many powerful vested interests. In spite of that non-controversial, factual comment, I recognise that everyone today is realising more and more that we are entitled to intervene and redress the balance against the consumer when that is necessary.

We have already got a good deal of State intervention in respect of consumer protection. At the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food we have the Food Standards Committee. We also have the Council of Industrial Design. Both bodies, which are State-supported, are doing very effective work. I do not think that even hon. Gentlemen opposite would now say that this is interference in commerce from Whitehall. The work of these bodies is very much appreciated and recognised by consumers. Every month I look forward to receiving from the Council of Industrial Design. my copy of Design, which is a first-class publication.

I would also mention the British Standards Institution, which receives a considerable grant. £160,000 per annum. We all recognise the work that it is doing. We also recognise that the Government have set a precedent—I hope that it will be a precedent—by providing £10,000 specifically allocated to the protection of the domestic consumer. So this is no longer a partisan issue which need divide the House.

Having got so far, I wish to make a proposal to the Minister. In this matter I think we should look to the very successful precedent of the Arts Council and establish, for the purposes of consumer protection, a Consumers' Council to encourage, promote and guide consumer advice, consumer protection and the provision of further consumer safeguards. I consider that the membership of such a council should correspond with that of the Arts Council. I do not mean that we should have artists intervening in these matters, but we should have people who are distinguished and recognised among manufacturers, users and distributors, experienced people in whom we can place confidence. The Government should make a grant in aid to the council, as in the case of the Arts Council. The council would consider the best use which could be made of the money made available by the Government. It would have panels, just as the Arts Council has panels, dealing with the different aspects of consumer protection.

I feel that this would probably be the most effective machinery for dealing with what is recognised as a difficult problem. I will give a few illustrations of the work that such a Consumers' Council would do. Each year it would provide an annual report. This would be a valuable review of the work being done year by year. It would also affect public opinion. I hope that it would be as attractively produced as the recent annual report of the Arts Council.

The Council, grant-aided by the Government, would probably have under its umbrella the Council of Industrial Design and the British Standards Institution, not to do the work they are now doing but merely to allocate the money to them and keep their work under review. It would probably in the same way keep under review the work of the Food Standards Committee. I do not expect the Parliamentary Secretary to be able to give me a reply about soft drinks. All we can do is to recognise that here is a Committee doing very valuable work. and we can recognise that by the way in which its report on soft drinks has been received. The Council would also keep under review the Food Hygiene Advisory Council. If they thought it right and proper, these bodies would, in return, refer matters back to the Consumers' Council as being matters outside their sphere but matters which they felt should be dealt with. The work which is at present being done would not be materially altered by this proposal, but the scope of the work being done by these different bodies would be brought under a common review.

I turn now to some of the other work more directly affecting the consumer. I have mentioned the British Standards Institution. We have the new and very welcome development of the British Standards Institution providing, through the Consumer Advisory Council, directly for the domestic consumer assistance and guidance in consumer protection, should regard that work as coming more appropriately under a Consumers' Council. My view on this is confirmed by the fact that the B.S.I. Consumer Advisory Council, apparently in the light of even its short experience, is driven to a similar conclusion. It is proposing that the work of the Consumer Advisory Council should be separate from the work of the British Standards Institution and that a separate entity should be set up to deal with it.

I am suggesting something much wider, but the proposal of the Consumer Advisory Council supports the proposal that I am now making. Whether, in regard to such a broad council as I am proposing, it would be necessary to extend the work of the B.S.I. Consumer Advisory Council is another matter, but it is the sort of matter which would be considered by such a council. I hope that in any case the Parliamentary Secretary will assure the House that the grant is being continued, if not extended, because I think we all recognise that within a very short time the Consumer Advisory Council has already done excellent work.

If we were considering that work, such a body as I have described would be in a far better position to consider both the amount of the grant which should be made to the B.S.I. Consumer Advisory Council and whether grants should be made for a particular work which was being carried out. It might find it desirable to give a specific grant to support the publication of the Shoppers' Guide, for instance. On application from the Advisory Council, it might similarly consider specific work, such as the provision of better standards for electrical appliances. Such a body would help to promote such campaigns as "Guard That Fire", matters which do not ordinarily come within single Departmental responsibility.

Equally important, such a council could more easily assist voluntary bodies. As the House knows, I have always taken the view that where there is scope for voluntary activity it is better to leave that activity to the voluntary organisations and far better for the Government to give those organisations assistance.

This is a matter in which, apart from the bodies I have mentioned and which ire officially supported, much excellent work is done by voluntary bodies. We have the Consumers' Association, which delights in its independence and which was fortunate enough to receive 6,000 dollars from the Consumers' Union of America. It would, I believe, be equally delighted to receive aid from the State if we could provide a formula which would not affect its independent status.

What I am trying to provide against is the difficulty which such an association feels. No one would say that through the aid of the Arts Council, the independence of artistic endeavours is affected by State intervention. Direct Departmental aid is another matter. Such a body would be able to be assisted without feeling that its independence was in any way affected.

There is another illustration more directly concerning the Parliamentary Secretary. The Retail Trading Standards Association does excellent work, including the prosecutions which it conducts and which it is really conducting for and on behalf of the Board of Trade. Why should there not be aid given to the R.T S.A. specifically for such work? It could show that it had already carried out during recent years 36 prosecutions of which 35 had been successful, and it would be right and proper for the council I am suggesting to allow specific aid for such a body.

I will give another example, a matter which has been discussed in the House before. Over recent years, there has been considerable development of quality marks and branded names. This has been desirable and undesirable. It has been desirable because it has established standards, and undesirable because in some cases it has provided false standards.

One of the difficulties in this case is to provide for independent testing. No reputable manufacturer would oppose such testing. Indeed, he would welcome it. But it would be difficult for the Government to provide such testing facilities directly—and if he likes, the Parliamentary Secretary can contradict me, but if he does, I will ask him to undertake the work—but in the form I am suggesting such a Council could do this sort of work. Such a Council might well cooperate with trade associations to provide some of the money and to see that the rest of the money was provided by the trade associations themselves, to provide for independent testing and for certifying bodies and similar organisations.

I call attention to another illustration. In Holland, there has been the successful development of what are called arbitration panels to deal with laundry and dry-cleaning. With disputes affecting laundry and dry-cleaning, matters are always difficult, because the different parties evade responsibility—there is the retailer, the manufacturer, the laundry, and what the consumer may have done to the material concerned.

It would be extraordinarily difficult rot the Government to conduct negotiations with the industries affected in order to establish arbitration panels, but it would be easy for the sort of body I have in mind, divorced from the Government but dependent upon Government aid, to see such arbitration panels established. Such a council would be far more effective in getting greater co-operation from the people concerned.

In this catalogue, I should not omit the work of local authorities. I have always felt that the town hall is a propel centre for consumer advice. Excellent work has been done, in Bradford, for instance, but, just as the Arts Council has encouraged many local authorities to take a greater interest in the arts than would otherwise have been the case, so I should like my suggested council to be able to encourage and promote this type of work.

Frankly, I should like such a body to be in touch with the nationalised industries. I doubt whether the consultative machinery for the consumers of the products of nationalised industries has been altogether effective, but there is no reason why such a body should not bring the nationalised industries within its umbrella.

When we last debated this subject, I mentioned the possible use of the B.B.C. for spreading information about consumer protection. This is vitally important. We now have the two publications which I have mentioned, Shoppers' Guide and Which?, whose total circulation is about 150,000 to 175,000. That is only a tiny fragment of the consuming public. Those publications do tremendous good, but if their work were available to a wider audience, it would be more effective. When I have followed the guidance of one of those publications, even in big London stores, I have not always been able to obtain the best buy. If far greater publicity were given to that work, the effect on standards in the shops would be far greater.

When I first made it, I thought my proposal was original, but I subsequently learned that the practice has been followed in Austria where there is a weekly shopping guide on the radio. I know the difficulties and I know that such a procedure would be ineffective unless we could use branded names, but if such a problem were put before the sort of body I have in mind, the response would be more speedy than that which we would have from the Government.

I do not want at length to refer to advertising and I appreciate the difficulty of the Government in taking direct action about advertising. At present, we have five committees enforcing—if that is the right word—different standards. In some cases they are quite ineffective, and almost farcical, but in other cases they have some effect.

I should have thought that a council such as that which I have proposed could make a much more effective impact in providing safeguards in advertising than the Government could hope to do directly. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) is promoting an Advertising Inquiry Committee. Although this is entirely nonpolitical, the Government would not dare to support such an activity, but a Consumers' Council might find it desirable to do so, if it were undertaking a specific and useful inquiry. These are illustrations of the practical way in which such a council could forward this work more effectively than the Government, and provide for assistance on a much broader scale than the Government are at present doing.

Although it might not be so attractive to the Parliamentary Secretary, one of the attractions of such a proposal is that it could also affect the Government. It could make it more difficult for the Government to procrastinate, just as the Arts Council can create a climate in which we are more willing to give aid to the arts. This is not necessarily undesirable. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would be sitting there, complacent and unashamed at not having implemented the Report of the Hodgson Committee, if we had had such a Consumers' Council.

In spite of recent legislation many things still require to be done, even in respect of food and drugs. There are also the questions of hire purchase and false descriptions. These matters could be dealt with if we had an impartial body which was able to call the attention of the Government and the public to what ought to be done. I doubt whether the Egg Marketing Board would have been allowed to avoid the date-stamping of eggs with the ease with which it did if we had had such a body to express its opinion about the matter.

I do not want to traverse matters raised in earlier debates, but there are also the questions of switch sales, and the sale of habit-forming drugs. We do not expect any action from the Government; in fact, it is difficult for the Government to take action in some of these matters. But if we had a body such as I suggest, able to make recommendations to the Government, we might get some effective action either from the trade organisations or, if necessary, in the form of legislation. In previous debates some wide points have been raised, dealing with the question of distribution costs and methods. The Parliamentary Secretary need not look so concerned now. A body of the type I suggest would not be able to carry out these investigations without Government approval, but it could provide the necessary machinery for that sort of work.

I now want to return more specifically to the terms of the Motion. I have canvassed this idea this afternoon because I believe that it is a new and possibly effective way of meeting a real need. I realise that it was for this reason that some of my colleagues in the Cooperative Party suggested a Ministry of Consumer Welfare. I can see difficulties in hiving off from the many Departments certain of their responsibilities. I appreciate that some of those responsibilities are associated with other responsibilities which would have to remain with those Departments, and that it would not be an easy administrative operation to bring together these various functions within one Department, however desirable it might be. The other and more important difficulty is that many of the matters which I have mentioned could not easily be made matters of direct Departmental responsibility.

I do not expect a Government reply, at short notice, with regard to the proposals that I have made. What I ask them to do, however, is to recognise that whether or not they take this step they have to answer for the various matters with which I have dealt in passing. If the responsibility remains with the Government, they are bound to take some action. I do not think that there is any need to warn the Parliamentary Secretary, but I warn the Government that this is a matter in which increasing public attention is being shown. The two consumer organisations which I have mentioned are relatively small, but their work has had a real impact upon public opinion.

I recognise that the Conservative Party, in particular, is in real difficulty in standing up to the very powerful vested interests concerned, but we must recognise that the new techniques, organisations and methods of sales promotion put the consumers at a disadvantage. We are in a dilemma. Although much enlightened work is being done to help the consumer, organisations which are becoming increasingly powerful are conditioning him. The hon. Member has had a good deal of experience in these matters, and I ask him to come in as an honest broker and see that the consumer has the widest range of choice, with the greatest range of competition at the point of retail sale; that the buyer knows what he is buying, and that those dangers which can be avoided are avoided.

2.56 p.m.

Mr. George Darling (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

I beg to second my hon. Friend's Motion.

I, too, would like to thank hon. Members who were interested in the previous discussion for giving us the opportunity of taking part even in this short debate. Of the three Motions on the Order Paper today, the most important is the last. We are taking them the wrong way round. However, we must accept that situation; it was the luck of the draw.

I want to make three points in regard to this subject. First, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it would be desirable—in fact, I think it is necessary at this stage in the development of the manufacture, merchanting and selling of consumer goods—to have the kind of council that he has suggested. I want to give a few examples of the way in which I think such a Council should work. At the moment, we have almost covered the field of consumer protection with legislation. Apart from the new weights and measures legislation, which I shall come to shortly, and which is urgently necessary, not a great deal of new legislation is required.

Most of the legislation we have is carried out by means of regulations. Because the manufacture of consumer goods and the methods of selling them are constantly changing and being improved, these regulations have constantly to be brought up to date. They have to move with the changing circumstances. The way in which legislation is now administered by Government Departments does not provide enough flexibility for the regulations to be examined and altered as they should be in order to meet changing circumstances. Therefore, a Council such as my hon. Friend has proposed would be very valuable here in suggesting how the regulations might be altered from time to time. It might also suggest any changes in legislation that may be needed.

I should like to give one example—I had intended to give quite a number, but in view of the time I will content myself with giving only one—of the kind of alteration that may be needed in legislation. We have at the moment covered the question of false labelling and false advertising pretty thoroughly in the Merchandise Marks Acts except for one case which has been brought to my notice. It is possible to get a misleading or false description of an article given verbally by a retailer.

The case I have in mind concerns a person who bought piece goods to be made into chair covers and wanted the piece goods to be washable—in other words, to have been shrunk before they were bought. He was given categorical assurances by the retailer that the material would not shrink when washed. The material did shrink. It shrank so much that it became useless. When investigation was made it was discovered that the manufacturer had indicated to the retailer in some way that the material should be dry-cleaned and should not be washed.

That information should have been passed on to the consumer. That was not done; the retailer gave a completely false description of the article and involved the customer in an expensive loss. As things are, there is no redress, as I understand it. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, I raised the matter with him and he assured me that verbal false statements, as distinct from false labelling, cannot be brought to book under the Merchandise Marks Acts. An amendment is needed—a small amendment, perhaps—in order not only that the customer should not be misled but the manufacturer's goodwill and reputation should not be impaired by false statements made by retailers. I could give other examples, but the point I want to make is that these things occur and a Council such as my hon. Friend has suggested would help the Government and the trade to keep up to date with modern practices and ideas.

My second point concerns a piece of legislation that is greatly needed—a new Weights and Measures Act. Here I must call attention to the incredible record of the Government in this matter. The Hodgson Committee that reported in 1951 made it perfectly clear that this new legislation, the content of which was proposed in its Report, should have been brought into effect immediately and that the regulations which had to be made under the legislation should be altered from time to time. The Committee suggested reasons why this should be done and the manner in which it should be done.

I want to quote the Hodgson Committee Report because I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us again that this Report is now to be thrown overboard while a now consumer survey is undertaken. In other words, the Government are going back to the beginning and are not taking any notice of the proposals made in this Report.

The Hodgson Committee said: Weights and Measures law is concerned in the main with the affairs of trade; and, as new trading practices, new manufacturing techniques and fresh public needs develop over the years, it must take account of such developments if it is to fulfil its primary purpose. This can, of course, be done by passing an amending Act whenever the situation requires; but this merely results, after an interval, in the growth of a lengthy and cumbersome body of law with the defects … which are outlined in the Report.

The Report then goes on to say: In a number of cases it would naturally not be possible for these changes to be brought into operation"— those are changes in regulations and so on— immediately, owing to the need for new equipment to be made available, for current difficulties in the supply of certain materials to be overcome, and so on. Where we feel that our possession of the facts enables us to do so, we suggest what period of time should be allowed before the particular requirements are fully introduced; and for this purpose we have assumed that, if any new legislation were contemplated on the basis of our recommendations, it would become law within about one year from the submission of our Report. In other words, the main body of legislation required here to bring our Weights and Measures Acts up to date should have been passed by 1953 at the latest, and we would have had time from then onwards to carry out the new regulations to meet the new conditions and so on which the Hodgson Committee suggested so fully in its Report.

We have been told from time to time that the Government are proposing to introduce a number of new regulations in order to bring the weights and measures legislation up to date to meet the new trading practices which have developed—prepacked foodstuffs for supermarkets, self-service stores, and so on. In fact, the Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor, on 9th July last year, said: We hope to bring the Regulations in as soon as possible, in all probability early next session …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1958; Vol. 591, c. 463.] The Session began last October and we are now in March, and all we know is that this information is to be thrown away while the Ministry engages in a new social survey to find out what the customers want and what arrangements can be made to accord with the changes which have taken place since 1951 and to bring our weights and measures legislation up to date. We could go on in this way for years, doing nothing. As soon as the Report became out of date, because nothing has been done, the Government could announce that it was out of date and go back to the beginning and start all over again. That is an easy way of getting nothing done, and that is what the Government are doing. I was surprised when, on 19th February, in a Written Reply, the Parliamentary Secretary said: In the light of the Survey, it may prove that it the best course is to proceed direct to a Bill which can cover the whole field …".— OFFIC1AL REPORT, 19th February, 1959; Vol. 600, c. 80.] That is precisely what the Hodgson Committee reported in 1951. Why is it necessary to have another survey to find out whether the Hodgson Committee was correct in 1951? For the life of me I cannot see why the Government should adopt this dilatory, time-wasting line, because these matters are very important. We must bring our completely out-of-date weights and measures legislation up to date, and I regret that the Government are to have this survey instead of carrying out the main recommendations of the Hodgson Committee. I desired to make those two points, and I hope, particularly regarding the second point, that the Parliamentary Secretary can give us a pretty convincing reply.

3.8 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart (Beckenham)

I agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) that during the last year or two there has been a tremendous increase in the public interest in this matter. One of the symptoms of this increased interest has been the phenomenal success of the magazine Which?, published by the Consumers' Association. Before I advertise this magazine any further I had better say that I am a member of the Council of the Consumers' Association, although I certainly do not claim to speak for it in any way this afternoon.

During the past eighteen months the Consumers' Association has built up a membership of over 120,000 and has had a renewal rate of subscription of, I think, more than 90 per cent. At the moment it is a flourishing concern which is independent of retailers, wholesalers, manufacturers, advertising agents and the Government. To my mind, the best protection that the customer can have is competition.

About four years ago, in company with other hon. Members of the House, including the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), I visited the Soviet Union. I remember going into a tailor's shop in Moscow. One of the members of the party asked our guide and interpreter what form of consumer protection there was if anybody had a complaint. The guide answered at very great length, describing the various consumers' councils which would go into any complaints which were made. One of the hon. Members in the party kept on saying, "Jolly good", as all this was described. No doubt it did look fine on paper, but the fact of the matter was that all the goods produced came from a State monopoly, and anyone who has seen any Russian products at all during the last few years will know that they are shoddy, expensive and exceedingly badly designed.

There is an important rôle that the Government can play in consumer protection. I go a long way in support of the case for a Consumers' Council, which has been made so ably this afternoon. I do not think that the Government can hope to hive off on such a Council the responsibility they have for protecting customers from fraud and for looking after the safety aspect of various products, but there is still very great scope for such a Council to do useful work, in consumer education, a complaint service, advice to manufacturers, and even the establishment of standards.

As I am sure that all hon. Members present know, a considerable debate is in progress now about the attitude which the British Standards Institution should adopt and whether it should go on just issuing one particular mark which goes on to various goods which appear to pass a certain specific standard in certain specified respects. It is argued, with great justification, I think, that too often this mark has become a sort of lowest common denominator. I think that there is much to be said for having kite marks of a different type to represent different standard of quality.

Believing as I do in competition, I hope that my hon. Friend, if he says something about setting up such a Council, will ensure that there are safeguards against turning it into a consumer monopoly. The establishment of a consumer monopoly of that kind would be a disastrously retrograde step. I believe, also, that the Government should be extremely careful of embarking upon comparisons of quality and using public money to subsidise organisations which test the goods produced and then say, for instance, that the Elizabeth Arden anti-sunburn spray is substantially better value than a similar article produced by Helena Rubenstein. This is not the Government's job, particularly when there is a flourishing independent organisation which can do that work well.

I hope that I shall not be thought impertinent if I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland, North and the hon. Member for Hillsborough, on the way in which they introduced and supported the Motion. Today, when consumption in this country is at an all-time record, thanks to the wise policy of Her Majesty's Government, it is wise to devote more attention to this matter in the House.

3.15 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood (Rossendale)

By raising this matter this afternoon my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has once again placed us in his debt. If I do not discuss in detail the interesting and constructive suggestion which he made for a Consumers' Council, and which the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Good-hart) endorsed, it is purely because I want to raise very briefly a number of specific points to which I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will reply.

First, I want to ask certain questions about the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956. The House will remember that, under the procedure created by that Act, restrictive practices have to be registered, and all restrictive practices have then to be considered by the Restrictive Practices Court. It is for the court to decide whether a restrictive practice should continue.

When that Act was going through the House we argued from these benches that its weakness was that it transferred responsibility for monopoly policy from Parliament to the courts. We took the view that the decision should be a political decision, taken by a Minister after full and proper inquiry had taken place.

We believe that our attitude at that time has been justified, particularly by the recent decision of the Restrictive Practices Court that the Cotton Yarn Spinners' Association's minimum prices agreement should be ended. I never liked that agreement. There obviously is a very strong case for saying that it should be ended. What we criticise is that a decision to end it should have been taken at a time when the textile industry is going through extremely difficult times. To decide to introduce another disturbing factor when 400 textile mills have already closed seems to us to be the kind of decision which ought to be taken by a Minister and not by a court of law.

In the view of the Labour Party, if the Restrictive Trade Practices Act is to continue ways must be found of accelerating its workings and of ensuring that decisions by the Restrictive Practices Court take full account of wider economic circumstances. If that cannot be done under the existing Act, new legislation will have to be introduced.

Before I leave that point, I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us whether the Government are satisfied with the speed at which the procedure is working and with the general effect of the procedure up to date.

I want also to ask certain questions about the Food and Drugs Act, 1955. Under that Act the Minister can make orders fixing standards of quality for specific foodstuffs So far, Orders have been made, to my knowledge, affecting butter, ice cream, meat paste and fish paste. I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us how many foodstuffs have so far been covered by Orders of that kind.

When that Act was going through, we on these benches criticised the fact that the Bill, as it was then, omitted certain provisions which had been in the Bill when it was originally drafted by the Labour Government. They were the provisions which called for the registration of catering establishments.

We believe that the registration of catering establishments is of the utmost importance. I often feel that as a people we do not complain nearly enough. A cup that bears a lipstick's traces has no romantic or any other kind of appeal to me. Yet how often one finds one in public places of refreshment. I wish that when people were given cracked cups in restaurants and cafés, they would drop them on the floor. I hate to find dirty forks, smeared knives and grubby tablecloths and yet all too frequently one finds them in restaurants and cafés.

I would like to share the confidence of my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), in the way that the public react to matters of this kind. I wish I thought that the public were as indignant as many of us, but if there is no public clamour for these things it may be necessary for Parliament to extend the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act.

I remind the House that in its policy statement, "Plan for Progress", the Labour Party spoke of the need for the registration of all catering establishments and said: This provision will have to be reintroduced if there is to be effective public enforcement of minimum standards of hygiene. I want to turn next to the Hodgson Report, which was discussed in some detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough. I therefore will not deal with it at length. The present situation shows how right were the Opposition to force a Division on 9th July last year because we regarded the reply to a debate on this subject, which was made by the hon. Gentleman who is now Economic Secretary to the Treasury, as wholly unsatisfactory. My hon. Friend has quoted one extract from the hon. Gentleman's speech on that occasion and I should like to read another. He said: I actually announced last November that we would be making Regulations under the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1956, and Food and Drugs Act, 1955, to effect quite a number of improvements in the law relating to the retail sale of food, based on certain of the recommendations of the Hodgson Committee. I was asked to say when. The problems are quite involved. We put out our proposals to about 80 different organisations affected and asked for observations by 31st March. Many meetings are being held with the organisations on points of difficulty, serious points, not obstructionist. Our original proposals may be modified in certain cases as a result. The hon. Gentleman went on to wring our withers about the difficulties the Board of Trade was encountering. He asked us to put a brave face on the fact that it may be impracticable to mark soda water syphons … but he encouraged us by saying that the Government expected to be successful with spirits sold by the glass. We were led to believe that the position about strawberries was very satisfactory, but that the position about detergents was difficult. The hon. Gentleman used a rather striking phrase concerning the marking of detergents, that it was difficult to know at what stage to put the chopper down and say, 'No more loss of moisture'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1958; Vol. 591, c. 463–5.] Now, having considered all these difficulties for so long, we had the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade on 19th February that the Government are to have a social survey and decide, perhaps, whether to have legislation and not the regulations which we were promised last July.

I ask the hon. Gentleman seriously to tell us to what timetable the Government are working. We cannot go on indefinitely postponing a decision on a matter which is of tremendous importance, not only to housewives all over the country, but to coal merchants, shopkeepers and other people who have a special interest.

I was delighted to see recently that Sir Frank Lee, the permanent head of the Board of Trade, in the Stamp Memorial Lecture that he gave last year, said: A new Weights and Measures Bill—there has not been a major overhaul of the legislation since 1878 and the present legislation is seriously out of date—is a rare exotic which appears to flower only once a century. I hope that the seed which my hon. Friend has sown this afternoon may have the effect of producing one of these exotic blooms that come out of the Board of Trade so very rarely.

I also venture to remind the House that the Labour Party has gone on record as saying that fresh legislation to implement the main recommendations of the Hodgson Committee will be introduced. Unless the hon. Gentleman pulls his socks up and acts very quickly, it will be hon. Members from the Labour Party who will be implementing the Hodgson Report instead of himself.

The last point I want to make deals with hire purchase. We believe that in hire purchase there is still too much deception. We believe that charges are very high in many cases. That does not mean that we are saying that all firms are bad. Certainly, most of them, I think, behave very well indeed. The nationalised industries, too, set an outstandingly good example, but there are far too many firms operating which do not live up to the high standards one expects of finance houses.

Hire purchase is now a growing factor in our national life. It is, therefore, one of our responsibilities to free it from abuse, in so far as it is possible for us to do so. It is for that reason that, to quote again our document. "Plan for Progress," we have said: A Labour Government will review the Hire Purchase Acts and the financing of hire purchase, and, where necessary, introduce appropriate amending legislation. We on this side have made our position perfectly clear in all the matters to which I have referred, and I hope, though I hope without a great deal of confidence, that we shall have an equally specific, equally positive statement of policy from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board pf Trade.

3.26 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers)

I think the House is indebted to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) for the way in which they have proposed the Motion. I acquit them altogether of playing partisan party politics in this, except for an occasional side crack which is legitimate.

There is no question about it that there is increasing public concern about this question of consumer protection. This is very understandable, because the complexity of modern manufacturing processes does make it more and more difficult for the housewife to understand exactly what she is buying. The old tests are not so easy to apply. The old adage caveat emptor is not quite so easy now to uphold wholeheartedly as it was in the past.

Nevertheless, I do not think I could let pass without a slight protest the remark that the Conservative Party is doctrinaire on this subject and that it finds it very difficult to stand up to powerful vested interests. It is not so at all. The Conservative Party has always believed in a free economy. We have said we believe that the housewives and consumers of the country are best served by a competitive private enterprise system. It has, however, always also been part of the Conservative Party's philosophy that it is the duty of the State, if it is necessary, to give protection to the consumer and to the uninformed.

We have got a very honourable record in that. The party opposite has not always been so concerned about the welfare of the consumer as it would have us believe today. Indeed, one of the objections we put forward when that party was indulging in their wholesale programme of nationalisation was the fear that if we created these great State monopolies they would tend to operate to the disadvantage of the consumer—

Mr. Darling

Nonsense.

Mr. Rodgers

—and the elimination of competition. We believe that by and large the free play of competition and freedom of choice is the very best safeguard that the housewife could have, and that it is worth far more than any amount of legislation.

I shall come to that interjection of "Nonsense" by the hon. Member for Hillsborough. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), who played no small part in the nationalisation programme, himself said in a pamphlet in 1957 when he tried to justify nationalisation: There is manifested a striking lack of sympathy with the consumer. Indeed, the consumer—who is everybody—is too often forgotten". I share the doubts of the hon. Member for Sunderland. North whether the consumer consultative machinery is not creaking at the joints and is not a very poor protection for the consumers. Therefore, I hope that on reconsideration the hon. Member for Hillsborough will not regard this general attitude as one of nonsense. I do not believe that it really is so.

As I say, the Conservatives have got a good record. The body which has been referred to today, the Consumer Advisory Service, which is attached to the B.S.I., was set up, after all, by a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer.

In answer to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, who asked whether the grant will continue, I can only say that, subject to Parliamentary approval, which is of course necessary in this case, it certainly will continue, as far as we are concerned, unless some other organisation should take its place.

I am equally grateful to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North not only for having chosen this subject after being successful in the Ballot, but also for his courtesy in letting me know the main headings which he was to raise in moving this Motion, which did help me a little more than would otherwise have been the case in enlarging on the points of particular importance which he had in mind.

This question of consumer protection is one that is exercising the public mind, and it is one to which we at the Board of Trade have been giving a great deal of thought and attention for a considerable time, particularly since it is my Department which has the general responsibility of looking after the interests of consumers, and of helping, with encouragement, advice and sometimes money, bodies which are themselves promoting the interests of consumers.

I am happy, therefore, right at the beginning of my remarks, and without attempting to reply in detail to all the points that have been raised, to be able to inform the mover and seconder of the Motion and the House that the Government intend to set up a Committee to consider this whole question of consumer protection. I regret that I am not in a position to announce the terms of reference, nor am I in a position to name the chairman or the members who will constitute that Committee, but I shall hope to do so as soon as possible.

I hope that this news will please hon. Members on both sides of the House, and, in particular, the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), because we do recognise very much her great interest in this matter and the way in which she has so zealously pursued us on this question of consumer protection. For many months now, since I have been at the Board of Trade, we have been well aware of her very keen interest in this, and I hope that she will feel some satisfaction at the announcement which I have been able to make today.

Miss Elaine Burton (Coventry, South)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am very disappointed in not being able to take part in the debate, but that, after battling for six years. I am glad to hear that that small gesture has been made by the Board of Trade?

Mr. Rodgers

There is nothing like success, as I am sure the hon. Lady feels, and she is certainly entitled to some credit, but I assure the House that this decision would have been taken whether this debate had taken place or not. It has been in our minds for a long time, though these matters are not swiftly decided, as those who have been in office will recognise.

If there are points which have been raised in the debate to which I do not reply—and quite frankly, I have not got the exact statistics for which I was asked on some of them—I will look into them when I read HANSARD and see whether there is any way in which I can supply the information in reply to specific questions.

On the question of the Hodgson Committee, I think that unwittingly the hon. Member for Hillsborough was a little unfair. The Hodgson Committee reported in 1951, and it should be borne in mind that at the time that it collected its evidence there was very stringent rationing. Conditions changed very materially in the supply of goods almost immediately after the publication of the Report. This is one of the factors which must be borne in mind. Secondly, it was incumbent upon the Board of Trade, and I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite will recognise that it would have been incumbent upon them had they been in office, that the proposals of the Committee should be submitted to eighty or so bodies for their comments, criticisms and views on the practical difficulties which might be encountered in trying to enforce some of the recommendations which are to be found in the Hodgson Committee's Report.

It may surprise hon. Members opposite to hear this, but I assure them that even to this day, after all this time, I am still in negotiation with certain bodies on certain recommendations arising from the Hodgson Committee's Report. It is not a simple matter. The Hodgson Committee had no machinery at its disposal to measure exactly what the consumer wanted. It was able to take advice only from various representative bodies. I know from experience, as one who has worked for a long time in market research, that it is impossible for a representative body, however well-meaning, to understand exactly what the mass of consumers want in a particular regard.

In view of this fact, and in the changed circumstances, I make no apology for saying that the Board of Trade has undertaken a social survey, a piece of market research, to find out what would be of real help to the consumer. The investigation will be much wider than that of the Hodgson Committee, so that we can proceed not to introduce piecemeal regulations here and there but a weights and measures Bill such as that to which the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) has referred.

I believe that there is need for a new weights and measures Act. There is no difference between us on either side of the House on that subject. I believe that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has gone on record that to his mind the first priority among Board of Trade Bills should be a weights and measures Bill which would be more far-reaching and would give more protection to the consumer than would be afforded by piecemeal regulations and which would be more far-reaching. But as we all know, there is a queue and a timetable for legislation, and in this case it would have to be a very lengthy and detailed Measure.

I hope that I am being honest and am giving a satisfactory answer to the hon. Member for Rossendale in putting all our cards on the table on this subject. We hope that the survey when completed will be of great help. We can then proceed to framing a Bill which, if we are returned at the next election, as I hope we shall, would be introduced. If some other misfortune should happen to the country, the hon. Member for Rossendale says that he would introduce a Measure shortly.

Mr. Greenwood

"We", not "I".

Mr. Darling

How long will the survey take?

Mr. Rodgers

I am not sure at present. This is a pilot survey to make sure that the questions are the right ones to elicit the answers to these problems. Until that is completed we shall not know when the proper survey will be completed, but I hope that it will be before the end of this year.

Mr. Willey

For some years we have been in the position of being told that there will be legislation next Session. Is there any change in this position, or are we to be continually promised that it will be in the next Session?

Mr. Rodgers

There is a change in that the election draws nearer and there will be a new timetable after it.

The hon. Member for Rossendale referred to certain Socialist publications. I notice that in "The Future Labour Offers You" it is stated that Labour will … insist that reasonable standards are laid down for a wide range of goods, and that goods are properly labelled. The housewife will then be able to see at once by the label whether the goods on the counter are up to the quality laid down by the British Standards Institution. Does the party opposite know what will happen if manufacturers prefer not to use a British Standard whether or not their products comply with that Standard? There are many excellent goods on the market which might have no difficulty in complying with the British Standards issued in respect of their line, but a manufacturer may not choose to announce that his goods comply with the relevant British Standard. In this he may be mistaken, but it is his own free choice.

Some hon. Members may have heard an interesting discussion that the B.B.C. broadcast on 11th March, which I managed to hear. It was called "Calling Consumers". In the course of that discussion a Mr. Tomalin, speaking as a manufacturer and retailer of branded textiles, said that he thought that the Kitemark was a bad idea, reducing things to the lowest common denominator and not discriminating between the merits or the variety of the qualities offered. He expressed the fear that a universal standard might become the lowest common denominator and argued that the brand name of a good manufacturer was a more effective means of protecting the consumer than a relatively low British Standard incorporating a Kitemark scheme.

As against this there is the view, which I know is held strongly by the British Standards Institution, that a Kitemark is better than a lowest common denominator. They maintain that it is what they call a "good pass mark". I make this point because I think there is room in the economy for goods of all kinds. As my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) said, it may well be that the Kitemark should be superseded by a series of Kitemarks of different qualities. Perhaps it is not the best protection for the consumer to try, as in the days of the Utility scheme, to have a fairly low standard, since this would discourage better manufacturers from endorsing that standard. Obviously this is something to be considered by the committee I have in mind when it looks into the subject.

I want to make one or two remarks on the subject of the B.S.I. Consumer Advisory Council. I realise, as I daresay hon. Members in all parts of the House do, that members of the Council are feeling somewhat discouraged by the fact that, in spite of a great deal of pressure on their part for additional standards and Kitemarks for consumer goods, progress has been slow. I have a great deal of sympathy with this point of view.

The members of the Consumer Advisory Council are all busy men and women who take a keen interest in the work of bringing together consumer and manufacturer. While I appreciate their disappointment at the seeming unwillingness of manufacturers to co-operate with them, I hope they will be heartened in their task of trying to put forward and to uphold the consumers' interest by the recent example, the need for a standard for children's footwear, a point which the hon. Lady has raised several times.

Miss Burton

That has taken six years and we have got nowhere.

Mr. Rodgers

I will not say that in such a matter, which is a technical one, the manufacturers are necessarily wrong. I ask the members of the Consumer Advisory Council of the B.S.I. to be patient and, if they believe they are right, to be persistent in their point of view. If public opinion is on their side then, through the Council and outside it, public opinion will make itself heard by the manufacturers. Perhaps I may be allowed to cite as evidence the fact that manufacturers are now discussing a possible standard for components of children's footwear.

One thing more the Council has put forward to the Executive Committee of the B.S.I., as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) knows, is a plea for the reconstitution of itself as a separate legal entity instead of being an integral part of the B.S.I. Indeed, it proposes the creation of a national consumer council not unlike. I should imagine, the body which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

If their desire to be independent is met, I understand they would be willing to give the same service to the B.S.I. as they have done in the past. The views of the Council have been transmitted to the Board of Trade and we are now examining those proposals. They will receive sympathetic consideration, but equally they will be the subject of an inquiry by the Consumer Protection Committee which we have in mind to set up as soon as possible. Mention has also been made by the hon. Gentleman of the B.B.C "Shopping List". I think he was referring to the B.B.C. programme which, for five minutes round about breakfast time, is broadcast twice a week on Wednesdays and Fridays. I think that this is a most useful service, useful to the distributor, the producer and, of course, to the consumer, and I hope that members of the public who are not already aware of this broadcast will be encouraged by this debate to listen in and take advice from it. I should like to commend the B.B.C. for its enterprise in this regard and to acknowledge the help which its researchers receive from those whom they consult when compiling the "Shopping List".

Mr. Willey

I should like to join with the hon. Gentleman in commending what the B.B.C. are doing. What I have in mind is something much more important than the work that is being done now. I was really thinking of the B.B.C. as a medium to make more widely known the information in Which? and Shoppers' Guide and that sort of information. We all know that the B.B.C., under its Charter, has difficulties, but I think that we ought to consider this.

Mr. Rodgers

I think that that is a very interesting suggestion. No doubt the people in charge of this programme at the B.B.C. will be studying the remarks of the hon. Gentleman and will see if they can implement them, or perhaps seek advice from other quarters before they go any further.

The hon. Gentleman also suggested that we ought to assist the Retail Trading Standards Association in prosecutions that it brings against traders who mislead the public. In fact, there is already, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows, a good deal of co-operation between the Board of Trade and the Association in the matter of prosecutions. Some times the Association brings to our notice suspected cases of infringement of the Merchandise Marks Acts. If inquiries show that on the facts the prosecution is justified, the Board of Trade are willing to take the offender into court. I do not think, however, that it would be right for us to subsidise the activities of the Retail Trading Standards Association in this field.

While it does—and I am glad to have this opportunity of acknowledging the services of the Association—a great deal of useful work on behalf of the consumer, its primary objects, as its name implies, are to raise and maintain the standards of retail trading. I feel, therefore, that the present informal co-operation which exists between the Association and the Board of Trade is the right thing, and I would frankly resist the suggestion that the Association should receive more formal and, in particular, financial assistance. I have the impression, moreover, that it rather cherishes, and. in fact, relishes, its independence and unfettered right to criticise even the Board of Trade on occasions. This also goes for other organisations.

No doubt the organisation which publishes the pamphlet Which? has considerable doubts, as I understand it, about the wisdom or not of being absorbed by any national consumer protection body. I have discussed this with the officers of that Association and I see their point of view. On the other hand, it is equally true to say that if such a national body were to be established—I am not saying that this would be the necessary outcome of this Committee which will recommend on such cognate matters—obviously all interests would have to be represented on it. Of course, it is a difficulty that the Consumer Association would object to the manufacturers and retailers being represented at all. It would not be fair to have a national body which excludes any section of the community.

In all these problems—this is where I sometimes cross swords with the hon. Lady—I do not think that in a society such as ours, even where standards and protection are required, we can or should, except where there is deliberate fraud—and there is other mechanism for dealing with that—get into a position where we try to enforce things which should be voluntarily negotiated.

I turn for a moment to the weights and measures question. I have already referred to the Hodgson Committee and our reasons for not yet being in a position to go ahead with the introduction of a new weights and measures Act. Meanwhile, many local authorities are trying to make increasing use of the Merchandise Marks Acts to make up for the deficiencies of the weights and measures Acts. Short weight, measure or number are false trade descriptions which all come within the purview of the Merchandise Marks Acts.

Weighing—that is, weighing machines, petrol pumps, etc.—has to be inspected at least once a year, but power is given to the Board to extend the period to two years in the case of any local authority where the circumstances justify such action.

In the case of food and other commodities which are required to be sold by weight or measure, the amount of inspection is a matter for the local authorities. They are required, however, to make an annual report to the Board of Trade on the work done by their inspectors, and the Board draws the attention of the local authorities to cases where it considers that insufficient inspection has been undertaken.

One way of protecting the consumer against short weight or measure in commodities is by making test purchases, but some local authorities may be reluctant to spend ratepayers' money for this purpose. It is possible that some of them might welcome a grant from the central Government to enable them to adopt this policy more freely, but I believe that the vast majority of them would be against such a grant. However, all these are matters to which I believe a great deal more attention should be paid.

I switch for a moment to the subject of switch selling. The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) said that he would be rough with me about it. I shall try to answer him in advance of his roughness. He brought it on himself by telling me that he proposed to raise the subject, and I thought I had better have an answer prepared which he would consider to be a better one than that which I gave yesterday. I do not think the hon. Member can complain if I now give him that reply.

As I said at Question Time yesterday, we have looked into the problem of switch selling and have investigated information from a great many sources—executives and salesmen now in the business, former executives and employees, dissatisfied customers and a large number of letters sent to the British Broadcasting Corporation following the "Panorama" broadcast. We have also examined information provided by the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, the Retail Trading Standards Association and—I thank him for it—the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house). The report of the Board's investigators will not, however, be made public. This is the usual practice in matters of this kind.

I can, however, say that 430 letters commenting on switch selling were sent to the British Broadcasting Corporation after the "Panorama" broadcast. Of these, 73 were complaints against named companies, 135 criticised switch selling generally, 215 objected to switch selling advertisements appearing in the Radio Times, and five were in favour of switch selling. We also received great cooperation from the management of one group which is said to be one of those most conspicuously concerned with "bait" advertising and switch selling.

As far as we can make out, there is nothing fraudulent in attempting to sell a more expensive product than the one advertised by making out that the cheaper product is defective or out of stock. Hon. Members may think this practice reprehensible, but in matters of this kind the Board can take action only by way of prosecution against false or misleading trade descriptions under the Merchandise Marks Acts.

As I said yesterday, two newspaper proprietors associations have made new recommendations. The first recommendation is that advertisements inviting readers to apply for particulars must give the persons replying to them an opportunity of indicating whether they desire such particulars by post or a representative to call. Secondly, such advertisements must not be permitted to contain offers of free gifts, free insurance, free entry into competitions. Thirdly, such advertisements must not be permitted to contain a coupon price reduction offer. Fourthly, agencies placing advertisements under this heading must be required to obtain from their clients and lodge with the Secretary of the Newspaper Proprietors Association an undertaking that sufficient stocks of the article advertised are available to meet reasonable demands, and that the product advertised will be freely available to readers responding to the advertisement.

Mr. John Stonehouse (Wednesbury)

At that price?

Mr. Rodgers

That is part of the description of the article which is advertised.

The effect of these recommendations should be salutory in removing the more reprehensible features of this practice, but we must keep a sense of proportion about these things. Advertising is an essential and vital part of the commercial life of the country and unnecessary restrictions on the terms and conditions of advertising will not help buyers and will certainly not help consumers. If newspapers and periodicals adopt the recommendations of their respective associations, much of the cause for complaint should be eliminated. I do not, however, believe that this problem can be satisfactorily settled by legislation. I hope that the steps which have been taken as a result of the investigation which the Board of Trade made into this matter will be of great satisfaction to the hon. Members who have played a notable part in focussing public attention on this practice.

I could say much more and refer to foodstuffs, soft drinks, medicine and various other subjects which have been raised. I apologise to the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) for saying nothing about restrictive trade practices. That is a very large subject which cannot be answered adequately in an aside in this type of debate, because it raises immense issues about the powers of the Restrictive Trade Practices Court and its timing and whether other factors can ever be brought into play to frustrate its decisions.

Equally, I apologise for not saying anything about the possibility of more flexibility in legislation. This is a point which was also raised by the hon. Member for Hillsborough. It is an enormous constitutional question which I should not now attempt to answer.

I say most sincerely that I hope that the whole House will be heartened, as I believe the public itself will be, at the evidence of the Tory Party's desire to continue its historic rôle of protecting the consumer by the decision today to set up a Committee which will investigate the whole problem. I hope within days or weeks to be able to announce both the terms of reference and the names of the chairmen and the persons who will constitute that Committee.

Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland, North for his courtesy and for the friendly way in which he has raised this important subject.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker (Swindon)

I am sure that the House is extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for having raised this very important debate. I am sorry that I cannot say that I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary, who has left me precisely one and a half minutes to wind up the debate. We know that, owing to the filibustering which took place to try to use time before we got to this subject, we have had little time to discuss it, and the Parliamentary Secretary himself seems to have indulged in similar tactics, which some of us greatly deplore.

Nevertheless, we welcome the announcement that there is to be an inquiry. We shall feel much happier—or we hope so—when we know the composition of the committee. I hope that the committee's inquiries will be a great deal more effective than those of the totally ineffective inquiry which the Parliamentary Secretary has just conducted into switch selling, and which told us nothing which we did not already know, and that the new inquiry will make it more difficult for racketeers to continue to indulge in this reprehensible practice.

The Parliamentary Secretary said yesterday that he had no evidence to enable criminal proceedings to take place. We knew that before. If there had been grounds for legal action, the Retail Trades Standards Association would have taken that action long ago. We deplore the Government's ineffectual attitude towards the problem of consumer protection. I am only sorry that I do not have time to recite the many examples in which we feel that the Government have failed in their duty.

Mr. R. P. Hornby (Tonbridge)

In the very few seconds available to me I want, first, to welcome the announcement of my hon. Friend about the appointment of the committee and, secondly, to suggest that we should be wary of entrusting too many powers—

It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.