HC Deb 23 December 1964 vol 704 cc1241-59

12.13 p.m.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark (Londonderry)

I am grateful for this opportunity of raising once again in the House the shabby practice of the "knockout".

May I begin by saying how sorry I am that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle), who, with the Sunday Times, has played such a leading part in uncovering the squalid practice, is not able, for various reasons, to be here today. May I also say that my hon. Friend and myself are fully conscious of the fact that, while the art world is from time to time riddled with these practices, especially in jewellery and silver, these are by no means the only fields in which rings and knockouts occur. It may be that if he catches your eye, Sir, my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) will mention some of the other fields.

After recent revelations concerning this form of commercial brigandry, which is really what it is, I think that the House is fairly familiar with how these rings operate, but to get it on the record perhaps I may quote something which I have borrowed from elsewhere and which I have somewhat adapted. It describes fairly well and succinctly the operations of the ring. It says: A group of antique dealers decide to apportion the lots at a given sale, in advance, so that no underbidder may bid against the party chiefly interested. The antiques, therefore, change hands at a price much below their market value. This value is established at a second sale outside the auction room and the difference between the two prices is divided between the antique dealers concerned as a dividend offered in exchange for forbearance. That fairly well sums up the method. But I should perhaps add that in some cases—this is especially true in the provinces—it is not necessary to reach agreement or apportionment beforehand. This is because one member of the ring in given areas knows another and because in many cases, after many incidents, practice has made perfect. There are also many occasions when there is more than one knockout. There can be two or three, and these are attended, among others, by small men, unflatteringly referred to by the larger members of the ring as "parasites". These are apt to drop out after the first round, although sometimes they go as far as the second round of the knockout.

These are interesting people, because it is undoubtedly true that some of them possess no premises. Possibly some of them have never bought a stick of furniture or anything else of that kind in their lives, and they are there merely because they insist on being there and will probably get something from the knockout because it is possible that they might bid for desirable lots. This guarantees them a modest income which I have seen estimated at between £7 and £20 a sale. Unfortunately, there are others who attend knockouts simply because they allege that they could not otherwise make ends meet. The eradication of the ring will be infinitely more difficult among the small dealers than, say, among wealthy London dealers or among the more prosperous dealers from other leading provincial cities.

I recall that back in 1956, when I was speaking during a somewhat similar Adjournment debate concerning the antiquarian booksellers' ring, I alluded to a sale of furniture which defrauded the vendor of about £40,000. This shows the scale of operations. I do not want now to dwell on recent auctions at length because police inquiries are proceeding in at least one case and it would not be right to go into great detail. But, just to show the magnitude of the operation, I remind the House of what happened at the well-known Waller sale.

The total amount of money brought in was £7,500 or thereabouts. Afterwards an independent valuer is alleged to have said to the Sunday Times—I think that this is right—that had the sale been truly competitive the vendors could have expected reasonably to receive £20,000. Look at the difference: £7,500 was what was received, £20,000 was what might have been received. So a good time was had by somebody, but certainly not by the vendor. This was the sale in which the famous Chippendale commode was sold. It went for £750. Today, it is said that its value is £10,000.

There was the knockout graphically described by the Sunday Times as having taken place in the "hired snug" in a hotel. There, it is said, the ring had a poor day because after the first round those who dropped out received only £1 apiece. However, it is accepted I think, that the final round of some knockouts can be very exciting indeed. Three or four dealers may still confront one another; they are the experts in their subjects; and the ultimate shareout in the would-be final round can be about £1,000 apiece. Small wonder that one of those who, I believe, had been engaged in this practice described the process as "twice as exciting as poker".

The knockout is wrong; it is a criminal offence; and those who practise it are crooks, whether they like it or not, and, indeed, whether they know it or not. We have, my hon. Friends and I, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan), learned from various visits and from sometimes rather mysterious callers how prevalent it is. It is like a disease which seems to affect, indiscriminately almost, those with integrity and those with less. It may be that there are some in the racket whose probity in every other way is almost beyond praise. I think that it is true that some involved almost inherit the disease; sometimes, though, it is due to ignorance of the law; sometimes a passive lack of understanding of the social evil which the ring really perpetrates on the vendors.

What to do about it? What can be done? Today, obviously, we cannot, within the rules of order—I realise that—discuss possible changes in legislation which is being or has been considered, but what other methods are there at our disposal? I think that probably one of the strongest weapons which can be used against the ring is publicity, and I, for my part, and surely that of my hon. Friends, too—will direct the limelight on to this problem as often as we can and for as long as we can. If we forget the knockout over Christmas I can assure the House that when we come back in January it will still be at the top of our "brought forward" files. Certainly, the last of it has not been heard.

I draw attention for a moment to the position of the British Antique Dealers' Association. I do not think that it is necessary to go in detail into the convulsions which have taken place in this body in recent weeks, but I should like to pay tribute to its new President, Mr. Hugh Agnew, whose courage and leadership in this matter have been remarkable, and pleasant to see.

Under his leadership, on 17th December, the B.A.D.A. passed two resolutions. I need hardly remind the House of what they contained, for they received great publicity. At the same time, it also arranged that all members of the Council should display in their windows a window sign, of which I have a copy here, expressing the fact that it is illegal to take part in knockout agreements, and so on. All this will, of course, do something to restore confidence in the B.A.D.A., which is a Government-recognised body, and confidence in it is, of course, necessary, especially as it operates, in after all, as what is really the art capital of the world.

It would, however, be somewhat naïve to believe that the B.A.D.A.'s actions will bring these nefarious practices to an end, because to begin with, under the 1927 Act, there must be doubt as to what really constitutes a knockout, and I have said something on those lines already. Also, we must remember that there are about 1,400 dealers outside the B.A.D.A., who remain unaffected, except perhaps by implication, by what the B.A.D.A. itself has done. They are totally unaffected.

There is also the possibility—I do not suggest that it has happened, but there is a possibility, and it cannot be going unobserved—that a member of the B.A.D.A. could, if he wished, obey the letter but not necessarily the spirit of this byelaw he could use, to take part in a ring for him, an antique dealer outside. These are all matters which must be considered.

However, the B.A.D.A. has tried to put the house in order and I pay it tribute for that. What more can it do? I diffidently suggest that it must, first, take perhaps even greater care about whom it admits to B.A.D.A. itself. It might perhaps publish in its manual a list of those who showed willingness to place the window signs which I have already mentioned in their windows. If they did that it is possible that antique dealers outside the Association in the interests of their business, might be inclined to follow suit.

Thirdly, what it might do, and I hope it will do, is to set up a small committee, or use possibly the general purposes committee, consisting of six, to come to the Government to discuss the adequacy or inadequacy of the legislation affecting this whole subject. It may well be that in the end the Government will think it right to appoint a departmental inquiry, or even a Royal Commission, to go into the whole question of auctions.

I believe that the auctioneers can help us in this matter, too, because in the main most of these rings cannot operate without the auctioneer having some knowledge of their presence. Some may, but many may not. If it came to the extreme case I suppose an auctioneer could refuse to sell a lot. One trouble is that an auctioneer has virtually no need of any qualifications at all, as I understand. For example, it is possible for him to pass the valuers examinations of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors without ever having been examined in the fine arts at all.

I wonder whether it would be possible for lists made to be freely available of persons qualified in the fine art papers. It may be that the Board of Trade could help us, could even post such a list, but I feel that if such lists were freely available they would be a safeguard to vendors in selecting their agents.

I cannot go much further into that without discussing changes in the law, but it may be that, without doing so, some of my hon. Friends could develop that theme a little.

Finally, on the remedies, I would say that the profits from these private auctions, being illegal, are presumably untaxed. Therefore, I very much hope that in this year, in particular, the Inland Revenue will scan the returns of antique dealers with very great care, because, after all, some of these people, by abusing the trade they are engaged in, succeed in robbing widows, trustees and others who need to raise money in haste. I hope that they will not be allowed to flout the Inland Revenue as well.

The B.A.D.A. has a Latin motto. I shall not, in my own interests, attempt to pronounce it, but for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, I will translate it, "Art has no enemy except ignorance". I do not know that that is always so. Certainly, the B.A.D.A. Council has purged what I would call the enemy within, and I hope that the B.A.D.A. Council will now feel that, in the interests of the trade, it should carry the war farther still to the outsiders, and try to defeat the other enemies among other antique dealers. In this, my hon. Friends and I will certainly be willing to help, and I am sure that, in so far as it lies within our power, this debate will be only a curtain raiser to things which are yet to come.

12.28 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)

I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) on raising this topic this morning and also to couple with him my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle), who did so much to start this campaign, in conjunction with the Sunday Times, and to expose, so to speak, the actions of the ring and the knockout.

I am quite certain that we have scratched the top of this anthill very severely, because the spectacle of the ants scurrying about is there for all to see. But in due course they will build the roof over the anthill again, and it is necessary to make sure that what goes on inside is correct.

I think that this is really a matter which concerns the public interest. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) is noted in the House for his interest in consumer protection, and this is surely just one more branch of consumer protection. I am hopeful that something more can be done in the future to improve the arrangements of the State to protect vendors.

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to what the British Antique Dealers' Association has done. It has verily put its house in order, and it has made the strongest efforts to do that. It is worth mentioning that in its handbook it says: It will be readily understood that the necessity of restricting membership to those dealers whose reputation for integrity is unchallenged was recognised by the Founders. … I think that we have a situation in which we have slipped from that position, and the reputation for integrity must be firmly re-established.

No tribute is too high to pay to Mr. Hugh Agnew, who has led this move within the B.A.D.A. to put its house in order. I am certain that he would not mind if I quoted from "As You Like It" and compared him with Orlando as he talks to Adam: O good old man; how well in thee appears The constant service of the antique world, When service sweat for duty, not for meed. Those words, though not meant to deal with knockouts, are appropriate to what Mr. Agnew has done.

What the B.A.D.A. has done is very important and useful, but we must remember that 1,400 dealers are not in that Association, and probably never will be. We must think of ways of preventing this sort of thing arising, not only by the reputation and strength of the Association, but by means of alterations in the law and in the practice in such a way that it cannot arise.

The Association agreed with our suggestion that a committee be set up which could come and discuss with my right hon. and hon. Friends ways by which we in Parliament could help. I am sure that this small committee could discuss with the Government what means are open to improve arrangements in the future. I very much hope that this committee will come forward early in the new year and make approaches both to my hon. Friends and to the Government, because I am certain that some serious thought must be given to improving arrangements for the future.

I also call for a wider inquiry by the Government. There is a Motion on the Order Paper which suggests that there should be an inquiry either departmentally, or perhaps by a Royal Commission, into the whole law and the whole practice of public auctions. I am sure that this is the next stage, and it is one which I press the Government to accept.

It is difficult to talk about the law this morning, and the law is perhaps the hardest side of the argument. I am certain that the law was contravened in the auction at Northwick Park about which we have read in the Sunday Times. I do not know whether it was the criminal law or the common law of conspiracy which was contravened, but if there are no prosecutions it must be for lack of evidence rather than because the law is not strong enough. It may be that there will be prosecutions, and therefore it will be wrong for me to discuss this matter at length. But, if no prosecutions follow the incident, I ask the Government to let the House know the reason why it was not possible to proceed, because in this instance it is very important to see whether the law has been too weak, so that we shall know how to amend it in future.

I recognise the difficulties of demarcation. A man who is fortunate enough to have something knocked down to him at an auction at well below its value is within the law, and so are people who buy on joint account. Nobody would wish to question those two practices. At the other end of the scale, however, there is the situation where a full-scale private auction, or knockout, takes place after the goods have been bought. One is perfectly respectable, the other is intolerable. Where we draw the line of demarcation, and how we define the act which is offensive and the act which is not, is the difficulty which lies before us.

The ring thrives, and can only succeed, in the economic circumstances whereby people are prepared to sell antique articles at well below their true market value. So long as the gap between the value at which people are prepared to sell things, and the market value at which people are prepared to buy them exists, the ring can flourish.

It was the same with the black market. The true reason behind the black market was the shortage of particular goods. Supply and demand do not match one another. The same thing applies to Rachmanism. The reason there is the shortage of housing accommodation. The only way to kill mosquitoes is to drain the swamp in which they breed, and until we can drain the conditions in which the ring can flourish I shall never be satisfied that it will be possible entirely to stamp it out.

Objectionable practices differ, but they are all traced to the same basic problem, namely, that people are prepared to sell at a cheaper value than their goods are worth. The private re-auction, or knock-out, after the sale is one manifestation only. It is just as objectionable as the goods in which a group of dealers are interested being apportioned among the dealers before the sale, and them agreeing not to bid against whoever is buying the thing allocated to him. In the same way the full force of competitive buying is not brought to bear, only it happens before, instead of after, the auction.

Then there is the problem of the parasites which my hon. Friend described so accurately, the people who can take away a pocket full of hush money which is not declared for tax purposes. This is a horrible manifestation of the things about which I have been talking. Finally, there is the tax aspect, and I think that what my hon. Friend has said about the Revenue looking at the returns for this year is of paramount importance.

I recognise that there is some difficulty here. I said that the value must be the same, or nearly the same, as that which the article will fetch on the market, but what is the value of an antique? We know so many different values, that it is confusing from the beginning. We have the probate value for death duties. We have the insurance value for insurance purposes, and now the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to introduce a new value for his capital gains tax which has got everybody guessing. A new value has to be put on articles.

Finally, there is the value of the item to the specialist collector, the person who collects Boule furniture, or Constable landscapes, and who will pay more for a good piece of furniture or a particular artist's work than the person who is a general dealer or a general collector. Thus, we have the difficulty of what is the exact value.

Nevertheless, I think that the value can be determined within reasonable limits. The mistake of something going for £750 when it is worth £10,000 is not acceptable. Nobody would expect dealers to get nearer than 10 per cent. of the real figure, but they ought not to be several hundred per cent. out, and we are forced to the conclusion that in many cases dealers know very much more about the true value than the auctioneers.

Dealers must know the value of these items, or they would not eventually pay higher prices, because they would not be able to get the money back. We are, therefore, led to the conclusion that one of the real problems is that auctioneers and valuers in this country have not brought enough expert knowledge to bear on the selling of goods at auctions. None of my right hon. Friends wants to stop a good profit being made if a dealer is skilful enough to buy something and sell it at a much higher price.

That is all credit to him, for his own expertise. What is objectionable is the exploiting of the gap which is provided by the difference between the sale price and the true value of the article because of a prior agreement not to bid. It is just as if, on the Stock Exchange, the directors of a company agreed to buy their firm's shares before the result of the year's trading was announced, and so make a killing. This practice is almost on the same lines, and it should be stopped.

The conclusion one comes to is that it is essential that a proper reserve should be placed upon goods sold at auction sales. This means that we have to do something to register auctioneers; there ought to be licences to deal, and we ought to make it compulsory for auctioneers to be advised by expert valuers of the goods which they are selling.

Many auctioneers deal in cattle. Sometimes they have to sell the contents of a country house. Although they may know to a penny the value of a Friesian cow they cannot tell a Constable from a Picasso. Compulsory valuation would be of the greatest help in making sure that no opportunities were provided for a ring.

Another matter which worries me very much is the high cost of buying the goods back. If reserves are placed upon goods sold at an auction and they do not reach the reserve the vendor is not only left with his antiques; he also has to pay the commission which the auctioneer charges. It might be possible drastically to reduce the commission on goods which are not bought in order to encourage vendors to place higher reserves on their goods. Often they place a low reserve on goods because they are frightened of not selling them, and they are therefore prepared to take too low a valuation.

If anything can be done to encourage higher reserves it will be a move in the right direction. In France, the Government have a monopoly of auctions, and employ first-class valuers. If we reject that system it may be possible for a future Board of Trade bidder occasionally to step in and put up the price. There are over 100 hon. Members opposite in the Government who, if they find some day that they have not quite enough to do, could go along to Christie's and bid up some Chippendale commodes. That would be a way of dealing with the ring.

I ask for a thoroughgoing survey into the law and practice of public auctions, including the sale not only of antiques, but silver, jewellery, pictures, agricultural produce and Government surplus stores. There is plenty of scope for looking into the whole law with regard to sales of Government surplus stores. I hope that in the public interest the Government will go as far as they can to meet this urgent requirement.

12.43 p.m.

Sir John Vaughan-Morgan (Reigate)

I want to join my colleagues in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle), who cannot be here today, for very good reasons. I do not know whether it would be in the best taste to describe him as having been the ringleader of the Parliamentary pack, but he certainly followed up quickly the investigations of the Sunday Times.

Some of the remedies proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), such as the idea of supporters of the Government going to auction sales and bidding up Chippendale furniture, will not meet with widespread approval or support his colleagues on these benches. Whatever may be the lot of those who temporarily play the rôle of Government, we would all agree about the remarkable and wonderful job of journalism which was done by the Sunday Times. We often hear complaints by the public and in Parliament about the methods of inquiry employed by the Press, but I cannot feel that there is any ground for complaint in this instance—and something tells me that there will not be any complaint to the Press Council on this occasion. If there were, it would be almost tantamount to a confession of involvement.

I hope that those concerned will accept this debate as being an earnest of the will of Parliament as a whole—there is no dividing line—that these corrupt and corrupting practices shall be brought to an end. They are not only corrupt in themselves; they are corrupting in that they bring in, on the edges of these deals, men who otherwise have excellent reputations for probity and integrity.

We have all certainly learnt a lot about the complexity of the subject. There has been no lack of information. There has been no lack of informers. Many people have come forward and have been only too anxious to tell us their experiences and of their past participation in rings, as well as giving us information about others who have been taking part in them. We have learnt much of the seamy side of the antique trade.

It is quite clear that there is a wide spectrum in this trade, ranging from those dealers against whose reputation there is no slur whatsoever right down to the runners and parasites and near criminals. The spectrum goes from whiter than white at one end to blacker than black at the other, and there are large numbers of grey or greyish figures in between.

I, too, would pay tribute to the members of the British Antique Dealers' Association who have struggled so hard and against so many difficulties to put their house in order. This is not the first time that such attempts have been made, but previous ones have been somewhat unsuccessful.

We must be frank about it. It would not have been possible to do anything on this occasion if it had not been for the publicity which the Sunday Times articles secured. All the same, I cannot regard it as being anything but rather unhappy that at the meeting which took place, out of 500 members of the Association only 250 could be found to vote for the crucial resolution which has been the means of securing that members do not participate in these rings.

I hope that the others were merely "absent unpaired", and were not abstaining in order to register a protest against the resolution, since they were unlikely to wish to vote in public against the resolution. The Association still has before it the problem of enforcing the new conditions of membership. I hope that the Board of Trade, which uses the B.A.D.A. as an instrument for various purposes, will be able to satisfy itself that the integrity of the Association, once established, will continue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury quoted with aptness from "As You Like It", but he will note that that quotation continued with Orlando addressing Adam and saying, But poor old man, thou prun'st a rotten tree". I hope that it will not transpire that the efforts of Mr. Hugh Agnew and his colleagues have been in vain. We have been told on good authority that the big knockout has gone; that it has been killed by the publicity. I hope that it will also prove to have been killed by the prosecutions which will follow.

The temptation is always there. After all the Act, as we know, allows a written agreement beforehand by two dealers, but the agreement between two can become an agreement between three or more quite legitimately. Before we know where we are this will be done in private and the vicious circle will recommence. It is almost impossible to draw a satisfactory legal line. If a dealer goes to a sale with a friend, it is, frankly, against human nature to believe that if they both want a certain article, one of them will not abstain from bidding. I have myself been to auctions and met a dealer whom I knew. I have asked him to bid for me, which is, I understand, of questionable legality, yet I do not think that anyone would say that I had been offending against the spirit of the Act.

Of course, we recognise that at the other end of the spectrum there is nothing whatsoever to justify the knockout, which is a private auction to which entry is limited. In my researches I thought that it would be wise to look up the meaning of the word "auction". I found that, according to the dictionary, an "auction" is "a public sale where goods are sold to the highest bidder". The important word in the dictionary definition is "public". An auction which takes place in private, obviously, is against the spirit of the Act.

For connoisseurs of the English language it may be interesting to note that the alternative word in the dictionary for "auction" is "roup", described as of Scottish and north of England origin. It is, in fact, enshrined in the Victorian Statute which deals with auctions.

We learnt from the Sunday Times article something of the elaborate mechanism involved in the knockout. I think that one of the nice touches was the sentence which said: Tempers are frequently lost in the ring. What also emerged was the unattractive and illegal rôle of the ring convener, who is really the villain of the piece. It is distressing to realise that very often the ring conveners have been members of the B.A.D.A., a fact which has enhanced their status among their colleagues and, ironically, has given them the necessary reputation for integrity. That is an abuse of the very intention and purpose of the Act. The convener at one of the squalid sales referred to in the Sunday Times was a Mr. Brett. I found it distressing to read in the Financial Times a report of the Association's debate, in which it was stated: Mr. C. A. Brett, one of the dealers involved in the commode transactions given wide publicity last month, stated that he had bought the most expensive legal advice available and added: 'They assure me that I have never taken part in an illegal knock-out'. I hope that that will be proved wrong by the Director of Public Prosecutions. We may legitimately challenge Mr. Brett to admit that he has in fact acted against the spirit of the law if not the letter. I am sure that that cannot be denied. This remark goes to prove that the Act is a weak Measure which lends itself an infringement. The intention, of course, was an excellent one, to protect the vendor from being exploited. It would be out of order to suggest new legislation and, in any case, 1 do not think that we are really yet ready for new legislation. 1 do not think that the public, or the Government so far as they have been concerned, realise how widespread has become this practice.

I have, therefore, tabled a Question to the Prime Minister, which will be put to the right hon. Gentleman when we return from the Christmas Recess, asking for a Royal Commission to look into the law and procedure relating to the law and practice of auctions. I have done this, not as a means of procrastination, far from it, but because we need more knowledge, in view of the widespread ramifications of these malpractices which we now know to be going on.

12.56 p.m.

Mr. Richard Sharples (Sutton and Cheam)

I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the House because I know that the Joint Under-Secretary of State is anxious to reply to the debate. I should like, first, to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) and other hon. Members on this side of the House for raising this most important subject. I should also like to say how much we appreciate the work which has been done by the British Antique Dealers' Association, and particularly by Mr. Hugh Agnew, to put its house in order.

One of the real difficulties about this problem is that of collecting evidence in order to bring prosecutions. These matters are discussed behind closed doors among a tight circle of people. There is very real difficulty facing the police in their endeavours to obtain evidence upon which they might bring prosecutions. I believe this to be one of the main problems facing the authorities in their endeavours to deal effectively with this matter.

I hope that we shall hear from the Joint Under-Secretary what steps are being taken to make more effective the means whereby prosecutions may be brought, and the necessary evidence obtained. In the event, the protection for the vendor which we wish to see must lie in the integrity of the auctioneer. It is usual for a person with no experience, who wishes to sell goods, to go to an auctioneer for advice. It is for the auctioneer to ensure that the auction for which he is responsible is conducted in accordance with the best practices of his profession.

I wish to reinforce very strongly the plea, made by hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, for a full-scale inquiry into the whole practice of auctions. I hope that we shall hear something about that from the Joint Under-Secretary.

12.59 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Thomas)

I join with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) and others in paying a tribute to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) not only for raising this matter, but for the well-informed and able manner in which he did so. Along with the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—I hope that the right hon. Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) will not mind the difference in my pronoun- ciation of Cirencester, as I say it in the Welsh way—the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle)—whom we all regret is not present today—and the right hon. Member for Reigate, he has been a crusader on this disturbing question.

The hon. Member for Londonderry, particularly, took positive action over the antiquarian booksellers' ring some time ago. I know that he was responsible for that branch of this profession endeavouring to put its house in order.

This is not an unimportant debate. Britain is recognised as a centre of the fine arts world, and one of the main reasons for this is the reputation of our dealers for integrity. Sales of works of art and antiques for foreign buyers run into millions of pounds and make an important contribution to the tourist trade. It is very much in our national interest that confidence in this market should be maintained. I believe, also, that it is in our interest that the general standard of probity that we expect in private enterprise should be reflected here, as in other places.

The hon. Member for Londonderry and other hon. Members who have taken part in this debate have rendered a public service by the way in which they have encouraged the British Antique Dealers' Association to take drastic action to outlaw the activities of the rings among their members. We are dealing with dishonourable people. It is no good talking about their being people of unblemished character; if they are prepared to resort to this dishonesty, they must face up to the fact that they are dishonest people, behaving dishonourably, and willing to cheat others of what belongs to them. I have no doubt that a good many of these people would be appalled if they thought that the words I have just spoken could be applied to them.

We also owe a debt to the members of the Press for the way in which they have acted as watchdogs in the public interest in this matter. In particular, I should like to pay tribute to the Sunday Times, which focused attention on the antique dealers' rings in an article on 8th November—an article has been referred to, I think, by everyone who has taken part in the debate except the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam. This has demonstrated, once again, the value of a free Press determined to expose the sort of rings with which we have been dealing.

The fact that there have been no prosecutions under the 1927 Act in the last 10 years is explained, as has been rightly said, by the extraordinary difficulty of obtaining evidence. Normally, the only witnesses to breaches of the 1927 Act are the offenders themselves, and they are understandably very reticent on the subject. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has already told the House that police inquiries are under way into alleged irregularities in the Gloucestershire sale last September. These inquiries are bound to take a considerable time. I do not underestimate the difficulties of the police in this regard, and we must be content to await the result of the inquiries.

A new factor has been the decision of the British Antique Dealers' Association to establish new rules to combat the rings. At a meeting of the Association on 17th December, 262 members voted in favour of a new byelaw that it shall be a condition of membership that a dealer will not take part in any illegal auction knockout. The right hon. Member for Reigate will be comforted to know that nobody voted against the new byelaw, but there were several abstentions. There were 245 members of the Association who voted for the requirement that members should sign a declaration that they have read the rules, including the new one, that they have understood them, and that they will abide by them. Fourteen members voted against this requirement, and I understand that several members abstained.

I join with hon. Members opposite in expressing pleasure that Commander Hugh Agnew has accepted the presidency of the Association. He is Chairman of the Society of London Art Dealers. He is held in the highest possible respect by all members of the profession, and I believe that he is rendering a signal service to his own colleagues and to the public as a whole by undertaking the difficult task he has now accepted. His new term of office will run until May, and he is said to be looking on the coming five months as a time of reconstruction in an attempt to regain public confidence and trust.

This debate, and the Press publicity that has preceded it, is welcomed as a means of making the public aware of what is going on. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury complained that people are prepared to sell their goods at below their market value. I believe that the more people with goods to sell protect their interests by having the goods valued and by putting a reserve price on them the less chances the rings have of operating successfully. I hope that the debate will serve to prompt people who are aware of these illegal practices to come forward, so as to enable evidence to be procured to make possible prosecutions under the Act.

There is nothing wrong with the 1927 Act that I can see—any more than there is with the Ten Commandments. I would not, of course, venture to say that there was anything wrong with the Ten Commandments, difficult as they are to observe. The 1927 Act is not difficult to observe, but apparently it is not difficult, either, to defeat, because the people who are involved and who would, if caught, be likely to go to gaol or be fined very heavily are not likely themselves to be the witnesses. In the one prosecution that has taken place, the people confessed that they had taken a part. The evidence was there. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, have both considered the question, and we find it very difficult indeed to see how the law should be amended.

The hon. Member for Londonderry hoped that the Inland Revenue would scan the returns of these dealers with special care. My impression is that the Inland Revenue scans everyone's returns with special care. If the hon. Member does not get that feeling, he is a lucky man. I certainly have it about my own returns. The Inland Revenue will, of course, take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said but, with all the good will in the world towards his proposals, I can hold out no immediate promise of a change in the law.

A Royal Commission to inquire into auction rings is not thought likely to take us much further. The method of the operation of the rings is well known—the hon. Member for Londonderry explained in great detail how they worked, and that is known to us, too—

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan

We were not asking for an inquiry or Royal Commission into the operation of rings, but into the law and practice of auctions and, as a cognate subject, professional valuations.

Mr. Thomas

I shall have something to say on that to the right hon. Gentleman. Specific allegations that offences have been committed are being investigated by the police on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

As to a complete survey of the whole of auction law, when the hon. Member came to see me on 16th December I undertook that we would have conversations between the Home Office and the Board of Trade to see whether such a survey could usefully be undertaken and what improvements we could put into effect. Those consultations are now under way. I assure hon. Members that we take this matter seriously and that we are as anxious as they are to restore the good name of the British Antique Dealers' Association and also to achieve and maintain higher standards.

Reference has been made to the fact that B.A.D.A. proposes to set up a small committee to consider amendment of the law. The Home Office will be very willing to examine any suggestions which the Association can bring forward. The other matters which have been raised by hon. Members this morning will be given serious consideration by the departments concerned.

I should like, in conclusion, to express from this Box the dismay that we feel that men who have had a great and enviable reputation should be thought to have been lending themselves to these unfortunate practices in the sale of antiques at auctions. We in this country rely on our good name and integrity in business and commerce as much as we do on the ability of our people and I am glad to know that the industry itself is seeking to put its house in order.

The Government will do their utmost to strengthen the hands of those who are resolved to clean up this whole business.