HC Deb 05 May 1961 vol 639 cc1803-17

2.0 p.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think it would be convenient to discuss, with the Amendment to page 2, line 34, the following three Amendments also in the name of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards)—

In line 37, leave out "part" and insert "parts".

In line 38, at end insert: or (d) where he is selling, or as the case may be is in possession for the purpose of selling, the goods or component parts as scrap,

to only on important matters of Government policy.

I quite appreciate that this type of regulations in no way would represent an important point of policy, but we have been assured by my hon. and learned Friend, and it has been stated on both sides of the House and by the hon. Member for Bilston in particular, that it is hoped that there will never be any need to introduce regulations. It is said that this is a power to have regulations—a deterrent. Therefore, if it is seriously suggested that the regulations will never be made, I submit that the whole matter is an exercise in deterrence and I am therefore unwilling to withdraw the Amendment.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 42, Noes 13. that is to say for the value of the materials of which the goods or parts are composed and not for use as finished articles; or (e) in the case of goods or component parts which have been damaged by, or in consequence of, fire or flooding, where he is selling, or as the case may be is in possession for the purpose of selling, the goods or component parts to a person who carries on a business of buying damaged goods and repairing or reconditioning them for resale, or to a person by whom the goods or parts were insured against damage". In page 3, line 5, after "section", insert "(other than paragraphs (d) and (e) of subsection (3))".

Division No. 160.] AYES [1.58 p.m.
Barter, John Hunter, A. E. Redmayne, Rt, Hon. Martin
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Hynd, H. (Accrington) Renton, David
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.) Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Brockway, A. Fenner Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
de Ferranti, Basil Kershaw, Anthony Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C. Lawson, George Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Ledger, Ron Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Finlay, Graeme Lindsay, Martin Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Lipton, Marcus Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)
Gammans, Lady Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Marsh, Richard Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Mason, Roy
Holman, Percy Mendelson, J. J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hughes-Young, Michael Mitchison, G. R. Mr. Darling and Mr. Oram.
NOES
Aitken, W. T. Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia Renton, David
Bishop, F. P. Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Grimston, Sir Robert Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Gurden, Harold Longden, Gilbert TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hall, John (Wycombe) Maddan, Martin Mr. Dudley Williams and
Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Dr. Alan Glyn.
Mr. R. Edwards

I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, to leave out "part" and to insert "parts."

Mr. Dudley Williams

On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I feel that there may be a difference between the third Amendment and the other two, and I should have thought that it would be convenient that the House should discuss the first two Amendments together, and then take the third Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) separately. I do not know whether that would find favour with you, but I think it might be more convenient to the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Mr. Speaker advised me to take the other course.

Mr. Edwards

This is a very simple Amendment. It is a paving Amendment, and the second one is consequential upon it. In view of the time and of the fact that I am interested in getting this Bill through today, I do not want to delay the House by discussing it, unless it is a matter of controversy.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)

This Amendment is one which turns the singular into the plural, and if we accept the fact that this Clause is bad in the singular, then it would be doubly bad if it were amended.

I am rather surprised that the Clause is in this Bill at all, because at the present moment we are extremely concerned about exports. Ministers and Members of Parliament have been spending a good deal of their time going round the country exhorting industrialists and manufacturers to give less attention to the home market and to go out for exports. It is probable that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is on the Front Bench, has himself been involved in this, and probably the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has, too. I cannot see the virtue of asking the country to give its attention to exports, and of having a Budget the main object of which is to help exports—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. I am not quite sure how the hon. Member relates this to the Amendment before the House.

Mr. Lewis

The Amendment deals with a Clause which indicates that none of these regulations will apply to any goods sold abroad, and the Amendment increases the impact of the Clause. Therefore, I think I was quite in order in dealing with the question of exports, which I shall endeavour to relate to the Bill.

If we are to protect the home consumer, which is the object of this Bill, clearly, if the home consumer requires protection, we must endeavour to make regulations which will make sure that the goods we are selling abroad are equal in quality to the goods we are putting on the home market. We have always gained our business successes overseas by the quality of our goods, and I should have thought that this would have included the safety of our goods. If we say that we want to introduce regulations to prevent somebody being blown up or injured, surely, equally, we ought not to say that it does not matter if we produce goods for export and somebody overseas gets blown up or injured. Therefore, I think this is a weakness in the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Gentleman's argument seems to be against subsection (b). It does not seem to relate to the Amendment.

Mr. Lewis

I am trying to keep in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but it is a little difficult. I agree that I am dealing with what is in the Clause. I should like your Ruling on this, because I am dealing with an Amendment which doubles the impact of the Clause. The Amendment increases the range of goods to which the Clause applies.

Mr. Darling

Perhaps I might help the hon. Gentleman. We discussed this on Second Reading, and dealt with the matter again in Committee. The hon. Gentleman will find that the reference to exports has nothing to do with the quality of our exports but relates to the fact that the standards in this country may be different from the standards in the countries to which the goods are going. Here we are dealing only with safety standards which may have to be altered because the standards may be different in the countries to which the goods are going.

Mr. Lewis

The hon. Gentleman has helped me, and I hope that he has helped you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to keep me in order. If one is talking about the quality of goods, one must include the regulations about safety and other things which relate to them.

I want to go a step further on this. In the coming months we may or may not go into Europe in a bigger way. To a considerable extent we are already in it. It is frequently said that when we go into Europe what we shall really be doing is enlarging the home market.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but I cannot relate his remarks to the Amendment, which seeks to delete "part" and to insert "parts".

Mr. Darling

Mr. Deputy-Speaker, this is only a drafting Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

But it is preparatory to the next Amendment.

Mr. Lewis

If we go into Europe, it will be important that there should be some similarity between the regulations which exist here and those which exist in Europe. I should have thought that this would have meant that the Clause would make it more difficult for us to line up with the regulations in which we may find ourselves involved in due course in the Six or the Outer Seven.

Mr. R. Edwards

The Clause deals only with regulations affecting the British consumer, and does not relate to regulations governing the export of goods. Of course, the quality must be high, but the safety regulations in France, Italy and all the Common Market countries may be entirely different. If we impose regulations on British goods to protect the home consumer and apply the same regulations to exported goods, it will damage the export trade because the regulations abroad may be quite different and the goods will then not be marketable. It is only with this relationship that the Bill deals.

Mr. Lewis

I find myself in a difficulty in answering the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I shall probably have to go out of order to do so. What I am suggesting is that there ought to be a Clause in the Bill which would permit the Government to bring in regulations to cover goods for export as well as goods for the home market.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That does not arise on this Amendment.

2.15 p.m.

Mr. Lewis

As I said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that was precisely where I should gat out of order, but I had to do it in order to answer the hon. Gentleman. I think that I have made my point that this is a weakness in the Bill. Perhaps I shall have the opportunity to develop the matter further on Third Reading.

Mr. Dudley Williams

I do not wish to make a lot out of the first two Amendments, which I agree are probably only drafting Amendments. I do not think that the language in the subsections is very good. I should have thought that a better expression would have been "the goods or any component part," but I will not make anything out of that. If the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) has been advised that "parts" is more suitable, I am prepared to accept it.

I do not like the third Amendment. If the Bill is to be passed, I do not think the subsection (d) should be inserted. If we are to have the Bill, nobody should sell anything which is likely to do damage or injury or to kill anyone, even if they are selling it to people who will use it as scrap. I wonder whether there will be a legal aspect if, say, a cartridge becomes dangerous because it has been allowed to degenerate, perhaps having around the cap cellulose acetate which may make it liable to discharge. I feel that that may be possible if we are to have the Bill, though I should not like to be too emphatic on the point. I should have thought that articles sold for scrap would come within the provisions of the Clause as well as anything else.

Subsection (e) refers to: the case of goods or component parts which have been damaged by, or in consequence of fire or flooding and the man is selling them to a person—

Mr. J. Wells

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I apologise for interrupting, but I should like to have your Ruling on why we are able to discuss scrap in relation to the third Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards). I have in mind the earlier Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams), in page 2, line 11, which dealt with second-hand goods, which seem to be in much the same category. Are we in order in discussing scrap?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) was not selected by Mr. Speaker. We are now discussing four Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards), and the arguments must be related to these Amendments.

Mr. Dudley Williams

I was saying that in subsection (e) there is reference to goods which are sold to people who buy damaged goods and possibly repair or recondition them. My criticism of this subsection is similar to my criticism of subsection (d). It may well be found that in the process of deterioration through fire, water or other means goods have become dangerous to handle. I can think of some chemicals which would be dangerous to handle in such cases. If I went through the Pharmacopoeia I could find many chemicals which become far more dangerous when they have become damaged by water than they are before that happens. If we are to have the Bill—I have very strong criticism of it in its present form—I feel that it is right that such goods should come within the scope of the regulations to be issued by the Home Secretary.

We hear that the Home Secretary never issues regulations unless he is certain that no injustice is done. I will not argue that today because I should be out of order in doing so, but I can think of many regulations made from time to time which have led to grave injustice, and to considerable disturbance in this House, and even in many cases to the tabling of Prayers, to annul the regulations. It would be wrong to assume that the Home Secretary is always wise in his decisions about the regulations which he issues. If we are to have the Bill—I consider that it ought to have been a Government Bill thrashed out during Government time—all goods should come within its scope.

It is not sufficient to exclude one or two items such as this. With great respect to the hon. Member for Bilston, he has not given an adequate explanation for the exclusion of these two classes of goods from the Bill, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will develop the reasons for doing so. If we are to have the Bill at all, these classes of goods should be included, but if they are to be excluded sound reasons should be advanced not only by my hon. and learned Friend but by the promoter of the Bill. Eloquent speeches from them might avoid our dividing on these two issues.

The Amendment in page 2, line 38, seeks to insert two new paragraphs—(d) and (e)—and I think that these should have been taken separately. I can conceive that some hon. Members might like to vote for (d) and not for (e), or vice versa—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The Amendments we are discussing will, of course, be put separately.

Mr. Dudley Williams

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for putting me right there. I had thought that that Amendment included both paragraphs. There is not a further Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bilston to insert (e), but if you tell me that we are to vote on (d) and (e)—but I see the hon. Member for Bilston shaking his head—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. Hon. Members can vote on each Amendment as put.

Mr. Renton

With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) is making is that this Amendment covers two separate points, each of which is dealt with by a separate paragraph, and there would not be a separate Division on those two points because both are within the same Amendment.

Mr. Dudley Williams

That is the very point I was trying to make. Some hon. Members may wish to vote for one of these paragraphs and some for the other—and some, no doubt, will not wish to vote for either of them. I know that I want to vote against both—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams). The proper course, if the hon. Member so desired, would be to put down an Amendment.

Mr. Dudley Williams

With great respect, it is a little late to do that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We should have to do that in another place. We are now on Report—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I was not suggesting that the hon. Member should do it now. I was pointing out his remedy.

Mr. Dudley Williams

I agree, and I must plead guilty to being a little careless in not watching the Order Paper as closely as I should have done. I was so engaged in putting down my own Amendments that I did not realise that such far-reaching Amendments as this would be put down by the hon. Member for Bilston—

Mr. John Hall (Wycombe)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As this is a matter of great interest to hon. Members, would you accept a manuscript Amendment at this stage?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

No, I would not accept a manuscript Amendment.

Mr. Dudley Williams

I was afraid that you would not, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, though my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) has put an interesting point.

I take the view that another Amendment is desirable. I do not make a great issue of substituting "parts" for "part", but I do not like the two new paragraphs suggested by the third Amendment. I hope that others of my hon. Friends, who, I am sure, will also wish to speak on this matter, will indicate to the House whether they, too, feel that they can support the Amendment in page 2, line 38. I think that it is a bad Amendment, and I hope that when we divide against it we shall see a substantial majority against it.

Dr. Alan Glyn

I agree with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) about changing "part" to "parts". To do so largely increases the powers under the Bill, and thereby raises a very important principle. We are here legislating for two different categories of goods, one for home consumption and the other for consumption abroad. I said in Committee that this might make our Continental and world customers think that there are two standards.

I am sure that we would all agree with the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) that standards, quality and specifications are quite different in different countries, and that, in essence, the purpose of this Clause is to protect our own manufacturers from having to produce goods to specifications which rule in other countries. I can see the object of that, because, if the Amendment were not accepted, the exemptions to which goods designed for export were subjected would be limited considerably.

I shall not oppose this Amendment, because I think that if we are to exclude any we must exclude all, but I hope that it will not be thought that by passing this Clause, either in its original form or amended, we feel that we can sell second-rate goods to our Continental and foreign customers. As the hon. Member for Bilston said, this is purely a matter of machinery whereby we can protect our own manufacturers, and I think that this point should be fully expounded in the interests of our very important export trade.

The paragraphs in the Amendment in page 2, line 38 would exclude a very wide range of goods—scrap, goods that have been subjected to fire, salvage and the like—and I should have thought that such goods were more dangerous then than in their original state. Admittedly, the customer should pay great attention to the goods before he buys them, but in some cases the articles may come from a demolished arms factory or chemical factory. After there has been such a demolition, articles that may be part of the equipment or stock in trade of that factory, warehouse, shop or building are not known even to the owner.

2.30 p.m.

A simple example is that of a metal case which is taken out from a fire, or from salvage, or during the demolition of a building. Nobody knows what is inside but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) suggested, it might contain some noxious gas. It might contain dry carbide which the purchaser might take home and allow to get damp so that there would be a gas which might cause risk to life and limb. There is the case of a possible fire in, or demolition of, premises containing carbide or other material of that nature which the bona fide purchaser would buy from the scrap merchant. I am sure that many hon. Members have been to scrap yards where purchasers might buy something in good faith but of whose contents they would know nothing.

I do not see any reason why we should exclude what is possibly the most dangerous source of goods of which the contents are not known. The would-be purchaser might look at a very nice steel box, possibly from ex-Army goods, but it might contain dangerous chemicals and even explosives. This is one of the categories of merchandise to which the Bill ought to apply.

Mr. R. Edwards

It would still be an offence under the Bill to sell it other than as scrap.

Dr. Glyn

I am grateful to the hon. Member, for that is my point. We have only to cross the river to get to one of the biggest scrapyards in London—Messrs. J. Warrington—to see an extraordinary variety of things sold. Does not the hon. Member agree that there should be a much more rigorous degree of scrutiny than in the case of other goods? In the normal chain there is the manufacturer who checks the goods and the wholesaler and retailer and finally the purchaser. In this case there is none of those checks and the goods are simply moved in bulk to a large scrapyard in the centre of London or the outskirts, often in an eastern part of London, and the would-be purchaser knows nothing about their condition or what is inside them. I should have thought that this was a dangerous source of goods and that we ought to insist that a greater control should be exercised.

Mr. Darling

That would probably be true if the words and not for use as finished articles were not in the Amendment.

Dr. Glyn

In many cases, builders and others for example, they are purchased for use as finished articles.

Mr. Darling

Then that is an offence.

Dr. Glyn

But not in all cases. I do not know what the definition of "finished article" is, but I can think of many occasions when goods are bought not as finished articles but as secondary scrap. One scrap dealer often purchases from another. I do not want to go into too many details, but I think that this is a class of goods which ought to be included in the Clause, if the Clause is to be accepted at all, even though some of us still have our doubts about the Bill in its present form.

Mr. J. Wells

I shall refer only briefly to the first two Amendments which are drafting Amendments, but I disagree with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) about their effect. I think that they are very satisfactory and necessary to promote and ease our export trade. Several hon. Members have expressed doubts about the implications of the Bill for overseas buyers. On Second Reading I quoted paragraph 44 of the Molony Report and said: That is an extraordinarily cynical remark to come from a Committee of this distinction. —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1961; Vol. 633, c.487.]

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hills-borough (Mr. Darling) was kind enough to agree with me that that phrase was unfortunate.

The two drafting Amendments will ease the situation. Overseas buyers will realise that we are trying to conform with their standards and they should not have further anxieties. In Committee the point was made of the importance of different standards and of conforming to the rules of different countries, and Canada's standards were mentioned. I ask my hon. Friends to welcome the drafting Amendments on the clear understanding that exporters will continue with their high quality. It is essential to the good name of our country that exports should in no way be spoiled by our deliberations on the Bill.

I see the third Amendment in a rather different light from my hon. Friends. In or near their constituencies, both my hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) have large tractor dealing businesses. These wholesale buyers of ancient tractors get them from farms at very nearly scrap price. The hon. Member for Hillsborough said that the offer for sale of such goods as finished articles would be an offence, but it is very difficult to draw the borderline in this case. Hon. Members with more experience in this matter than I will agree that it is possible to buy a very old tractor for 30s. and then to sell it to a farmer on a remote hill farm who will be extremely glad to get it for £20 or £30 after it has been "done up". This scrap dealing must be excluded from the Bill and for that reason I welcome paragraph (d) which I regard as excellent.

However, I was worried by the remarks of the hon. Member for Hills-borough. He said that selling an item as a finished article when it had been bought as scrap might be an offence. One can only hope that in issuing any regulations the Home Office will bear in mind the difficulties of the scrap yards, particularly those of dealers in ferrous scrap and agricultural equipment. We all know that tractors go not only to remote hill farms, but from East Anglia to foreign countries. The overseas buyers are fully aware of the position and do not believe that they are buying new British goods. They know that they are getting old stuff. They think that they are getting very good value for their money. For this reason, I welcome paragraph (d).

Paragraph (e) is rather different. I hope I see in this paragraph some concession from the hon. Member for Bilston to remarks I made in Committee, which appear in column 69, dealing with job stock buyers. I was very concerned about the position of a man who buys goods which have been damaged.

Mr. R. Edwards indicated assent.

Mr. Wells

I am grateful to the hon. Member for introducing paragraph (e), but I am not altogether happy about its wording. Although I am grateful to him for the principle, I hope that he will think about it again. I do not know if it is possible to divide paragraphs (d) and (e), or whether he can withdraw the whole Amendment, although I am in favour of the principle, with a view to tabling it again with altered wording.

My reason is that there is no specific mention in paragraph (e) of transactions being done by people whose exclusive business it is. The paragraph contains these words: selling…the goods or component parts to a person who carries on a business of buying damaged goods and repairing or reconditioning them for resale…. That is all right as far as it goes, but it is not an exclusive business. Somebody body carrying on another business may well stray into this business and do it occasionally. That is where grave dangers can arise.

The promoter has said repeatedly that he does not want to harry the small retailer. We accept his words in that spirit. He seeks to protect the consumer. We are all anxious that the consumer should be protected. It is my belief that the purchaser of second-hand goods which have been damaged or repaired after damage knows what he is getting. He thinks that he is getting value for money. It is reasonably simple for him to be protected. He looks after his own interests. The vendor needs this safeguard.

There is the difficulty of the man whose trade is quite different but who once in a while strays into the reconditioning of damaged goods. He might display damaged and repaired goods alongside wholesome goods. That is where there might well be a genuine danger to the consumer. It will be of great advantage if the promoter can alter that between now and the final stages of the Bill.

There is another aspect of the scrap question. There have been questions and comments, in the House and outside, about certain scrap dealings in the North. It is essential that people should be clear in their minds about the valuable service which the scrap-dealing community provide for the rest of us.

That may sound a surprising remark, but people living in certain rural areas who are anxious to maintain the beauty and amenity of the countryside and do not have a full refuse collection service are frequently in grave difficulties in disposing of bulky articles. The scrap dealer, the sort of man who will be protected by paragraph (d) and (e)—I have more in mind the iron and ferrous dealer who will be protected by paragraph (d)—provides a useful service to the community, particularly in rural districts. Therefore, we should provide him with every protection. Such a dealer is a familiar figure in country lanes. The prices he pays are not always high, but the farming community welcome his visits and are glad to have the place cleaned up. He provides a real service which local authorities do not, and indeed should not.

2.45 p.m.

Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I welcome the Amendments in lines 34 and 37. I welcome the Amendment in line 38, with reservations. I repeat my expression of appreciation to the hon. Gentle man for meeting the point I made in Committee, but I shall be very grateful if he will go a little further towards meeting my difficulty.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 37, leave out "part" and insert "parts".

In line 38, at end insert: or (d) where he is selling, or as the case may be is in possession for the purpose of selling, the goods or component parts as scrap, that is to say for the value of the materials of which the goods or parts are composed and not for use as finished articles; or (e) in the case of goods or component parts which have been damaged by, or in consequence of, fire or flooding, where he is selling, or as the case may be is in possession for the purpose of selling, the goods or component parts to a person who carries on a business of buying damaged goods and repairing or reconditioning them for resale or to a person by whom the goods or parts were insured against damage".

In page 3, line 5, after "section", insert: (other than paragraphs (d) and (e) of subsection (3))".—[Mr. R. Edwards.]