CONSUMER PROTECTION

HC Deb 25 March 1965 vol 709 cc1015-60

5.0 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer (Bristol, Central)

The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. William Yates) has fully upheld the reputation which he has achieved in the House over many years for courage and independence, and I am sure that no hon. Member on this side of the House resented his intervention. We welcomed it and listened with great interest. I enjoyed it and I wish that I had the detailed knowledge of the situation in the Middle East which he has to enable me to comment on what he said. He will forgive me if I exercise the right which he exercised in the terms of this debate and return the House, for a relatively short time as far as I am concerned, to the subject of consumer protection. I do not at all resent that we should have left it. It was an interesting interval and of great profit to me personally, but I came here intending to speak on consumer protection and on consumer protection I intend to speak.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) introduced the debate with great force and clarity and rendered a service to the House by raising the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) followed him with great lucidity and penetration. Each of my hon. Friends dealt with individual cases, as they had the possibility to do, but I propose to discuss the subject in more general terms.

Listening to my hon. Friends speaking with such eloquence, it occurred to me that this kind of discussion would have been very foreign, very strange to a mediaeval peasant, because he was not in a position to consume very much. Nearer our own time, an unemployed worker in the 1930s would have thought it very strange, for he also was not in a position to consume very much. The great bulk of the world's population today would find it curious that we should discuss consumer protection with so much interest when most human beings are not in a position to consume very much.

In other words, the reflection occurred to me that this was a subject connected with the high level of consumption in mainly Western industrialised societies. There are two reasons why consumer protection has become important in recent years in this country and the United States and other highly industrialised Western countries.

First, generally full employment gives tremendous advantages to the citizen in his capacity as a worker and as a producer. The trade unions, organised in free industrial societies, find themselves to a great extent in a seller's market. They can demand, and often obtain, thank goodness, the highest possible wages or salaries. Therefore, social cheating at the expense of the worker is not so easy today as it was in the past. I am talking of the economic categories. It is not as easy as it was in the past to cheat socially at the expense of the producer, and hence it is the consumer who now very often becomes the main subject of exploitation by those who are anxious for quick returns and easy money, and sometimes large profits if they can be obtained. That is the first reason why consumer protection has come so much to the front and makes it a matter which should receive urgent attention by my hon. Friend's Department.

The second reason why it has come so much to the front is that competition is no longer, if it ever was, an entirely effective protection for the consumer. The right to go elsewhere if one does not like what one gets in one shop, or in one store, does not mean so much today as it did in the past, because if one goes round the corner to the other shop, or to the other store, one finds that the product there is the same as it was in the first shop or store.

Modern advertising—and my hon. Friends dealt with this—is of great value and is inseparable from the efficient working of a modern industrial society, but it tends to numb the critical faculties, however helpful it may be in drawing attention to something new.

One must realise, too, that many products are so tastefully and seductively packed that it is almost impossible for the consumer to compare the good with the not so good. Perhaps I might give the House an example which often rivets itself on my thoughts and feelings. I know that many Members are sensible enough to leave the buying of their shirts to their wives, but I do not do that. I buy my own. It just happens to be a domestic custom in my family for me to do so, it is no reflection on my wife, her industry and her taste I hasten to add.

Now I am baffled, bogged down, and bewildered by the boxes in which the shirts come. As a consumer, I have never ask that shirts should be put in boxes in this way. I have never been able to find anyone who wants shirts to be put into boxes. What is more, unless one takes out all the pins and the little plastic bits that go round the top of the shirt, it cannot be worn without serious damage to one's throat.

Also when a shirt is packed in a box, only the front of it is visible. This makes it very difficult to compare shirts; to decide which is a good shirt before buying it.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

5.10 a.m.

Mr. Palmer

If I was a little facetious on the subject of shirts and the boxes they come in it was only in order to make my point more forcefully.

This way of packaging things so that their quality cannot easily be discovered is becoming nothing more than an abuse. Why should not a man be allowed to try on a shirt before buying it, in the same way that a woman tries on a dress? If she is a discerning woman she is thus able to compare qualities, and usually does.

I submit that the curse of packaging has gone much too far. Packaging may make for ease of handling, and I suppose that in a supermarket it is essential, but I shall be glad if my hon. Friend can give the House his views on this modern retailing practice of putting so many pigs in pokes, so that it is impossible to get at them.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt (Willesden, West)

Before my hon. Friend leaves the tale of the shirt, I put it to him that it is not only a question of not being able to discover what size the shirt is; the packaging precludes the discovery of exactly how much heavy dressing has been put into the shirt to make it appear to be of good quality.

Mr. Palmer

I could not agree more. Perhaps "fraud" and "deception" are too strong words, but altogether this practice does not give the would-be customer an opportunity of deciding the true value of the goods. We are sometimes told by the extreme advocates of free competition that the consumer is king, but I have been unable to find any consumer who wants to have his shirts put up in boxes, but he must have it done.

Mr. Harold Lever

Can my hon. Friend assist the House by telling it why manufacturers of shirts, in obstinate defiance of the unanimous wish of the public—as discovered by my hon. Friend—not to have shirts packed in boxes, succeed nevertheless in selling their shirts in boxes? Why does not one of them venture to attempt to satisfy the universal wish and capture the entire market by supplying shirts without boxes?

Mr. Palmer

I have no immediate complete answer available, but as far as I can see everyone is in the conspiracy to put shirts in boxes. I am sure that the customers have not been consulted. Although that lends force to my argument, it was by way of being a digression. I make the point again that competition by itself is not enough in these days. I am not against competition in the retail field. I am a Socialist, and a convinced Socialist, and I believe there is everything to be said for public ownership in large-scale industry, and a lot to be said against too much competition in large-scale industry because it leads to duplication, capital wastage, and stands in the way of proper planning. But I also believe there is everything to be said for genuine competition in the retail field.

I hope that under this Government, which I support, we shall have a lot more competition in the retail field and that monopolies and restrictive practices will be broken down to the benefit of the consumer. The consumer needs competition in retailing and he does not get enough.

Price is not always any guide to quality either. I read the publication Which? and I must disagree a little with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. G. Rhodes) when he seemed to suggest that Which? was not widely read by the whole population. I find that there are readers of Which? in all sections of the population and in all occupations. I myself find it a most useful publication. Which? recently gave some facts and prices about an article which is known as "the little black dress".

Now I have never worn a little black dress, although I have worn a shirt of course, as I have explained. But I know that the little black dress is a very standard piece of female equipment. Which?, in a most interesting passage in an issue this year, gave some prices for a little black dress. Apparently the most you can pay for a little black dress, and it is staggering to the male intelligence, and I expect that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I may say so, will be startled to know this, is £66, and you can also get one for only £2.

Mr. Harold Lever

So what?

Mr. Palmer

I am coming to that. My hon. Friend is a little impatient. You can get them at £66, £2, £17 and six guineas. A panel of very competent judges studied them, felt them, and judged them as one does judge a little black dress, I suppose, and came to the conclusion that the best value in every way was the dress at six guineas. Most of us, I suppose, would probably have thought that it would be the most expensive dress. This was an investigation carried out by that excellent organisation Which? and it must give us a little thought when we find that in our industrial market economy, price is not necessarily by itself any guide to quality.

It is for this reason we have had this great growth of consumer associations. As a democrat, I think that it is a fine thing that there should be this growth of these organisations. They are excellent. They have done a vast amount to stimulate the critical faculty among consumers. So far I think these consumer associations, although they are very frank indeed in their opinions, go into great detail and say things which in the ordinary way would be regarded as very damaging against many products, have achieved a remarkable immunity from legal actions. I think they are generally telling the truth, and if those who are attacked or criticised in this way are sensible they will try to mend their ways and improve. If they risk taking action in the courts, it may be they will expose themselves the more and that is why they do not do it.

What I think is good and what I should like my hon. Friend's opinion about is the consumer associations, particularly the Consumers' Association itself which publishes Which? They do seem genuinely independent, and I hope and pray they will remain that way. There was a time, I believe, when the motoring journals gave fairly objective reports on motor cars. That was in the early days, of course, but it has long since ceased to be the case. It is only now when we have Which? with its car supplement that the consumer is able to get back to those days.

After all, we do not always have a car for pleasure but through sheer necessity, and it is not something which applies to any one section of the population. The quality of cars is of great interest to us all, and it is only now, as a result of the Which? car supplement, that we are able to get frank talking about the quality of cars and their performance. Although at one time, as I say, the motoring journals set out to do this, they have abandoned that practice, and they seem to have got entirely into the hands of the manufacturers themselves.

I hope, therefore, consumer associations will retain their objectivity and will not in any way be seduced by pressures that might in the future be placed upon them.

Now I will declare my interest as a co-operator, because I think another great form of self-help for the consumer is the co-operative movement of this country. They are consumers on a voluntary basis. They come together to provide goods and services for others. They employ their own managers, administrators, technical people and the rest of it. They have an opportunity—and I am sorry more co-operators do not take advantage of it—at quarterly and other meetings of the societies to discuss as part of the mechanics of their own business such questions as the quality of goods and services and criticisms that can be lodged against the practical working out of co-operation. Allowing for the fact that it is an imperfect world in which we live, we can look still to the co-operative movement of this country—the original great consumers' movement—as being very much a part of the protection of the consumer in the 'sixties and for many, many years to come.

I know there are those who think that because the co-operative movement came into being first in Victorian times as a reaction against the miseries and the exploitation of the Industrial Revolution, it has no part to play in modern times. As a co-operator, I think that is nonsense. In a world where the consumer presses forward all the time, co-operation has everything to contribute and does.

This is the point I want to put to my hon. Friend, therefore. I think it should be an article of faith of democratic government in the affluent consumer-conscious society to encourage co-operation—and I am not trying to put this in any narrow commercial sense—as a countercheck to producer domination. I would like to have my hon. Friend's opinion as to whether that is to be the policy of Her Majesty's Government under our new leaders; because, as I say, I should have thought that was common sense. It should be part of the policy of a democratic government in an affluent society.

Recognising the collective self-help of the consumer that we are getting these days, I argue that both in the matter of consumer associations and in the matter of co-operation, Governments cannot simply stand aloof. They must step in and do everything to encourage and assist this very healthy development, as the trade unions were helped in their time.

In the first place, the trade unions were established by trade unionists who had to sacrifice and to fight against tremendous odds to establish their organisations. After a time, however, public opinion and then Governments gradually came to recognise that trade unionism was good for society and needed to be encouraged. Therefore, although the trade union movement at first climbed up on its own account, later the State stepped in and assisted its climb. The same attitude should be taken by any modern sensible Government towards the development of self-help by consumers.

The Gracious Speech spoke in exact terms, in at least a sentence or two, of the Government's intention to help the consumer. I should like to know from my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade whether what the Government said through the medium of the Queen's Speech at the opening of the present Parliament of their intention to help the consumer means doing more than has been done so far to compel truth in advertising?

My hon. Friends have raised this issue and I will not, therefore, stress it at too great length. Like my hon. Friends, however, I do not regard advertising as wrong or bad in itself. To advertise means to make known. It is significant that now that the planned, enclosed, Communist societies such as are to be found in much of Eastern Europe have been obliged to respond, or are planning to respond, to the need for more consumer goods, they discover that they cannot have an effective policy of supplying goods for consumer needs unless there is a certain amount of advertising. They find that advertising is essential to the proper working of consumer choice.

I accept that argument and, therefore, from that point of view, I have no bias against advertising. It fulfils a socially necessary purpose. But there is still much advertising which plays upon the hidden fears of people, particularly in health and medical matters, and in that sense advertising of that kind is both wrong and pernicious. I will not weary the House by examples, but many could be found.

When one talks about truth in advertising, I hear the argument that it is not easy to get truth in advertising because it is essentially a subjective business and objectivity is impossible. As the House perhaps knows, I am an engineer by profession and job, and it is my business from time to time to read technical journals, to study them and to look at the advertisements in them. Much advertising is done in technical journals, not only for engineering, but in many other technical branches. In the main, that advertising is always objective, truthful and helpful, the reason being that readers of such papers would soon test by experience the validity of the claims made. Therefore, it does not pay the advertisers of technical products, machinery and the like, to make false claims because they would quickly be found out.

Therefore, a tradition has grown up which has not detracted from advertising. Advertising goes on and it is very useful, but a tradition has grown up of truth and objectivity, which already applies in much technical advertising, and which, I think, should be extended to advertising generally. I should be very glad if my hon. Friend would also comment on that point. Could he tell us what the present Administration will do, and what they can do, if their present powers are sufficient—one must make that assumption—to compel more truth and more objectivity in advertising?

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) referred to hearing aids, and was quite right in saying that this issue has been raised recently in the House. I raised it myself. I had a case brought to my attention in Bristol of an elderly couple, both, I think, over 80, who saw an advertisement for a hearing aid, which was very good, would work, was very small and could be fitted. The advertisement said that a customer could have it for a week, a fortnight or a month for a free trial and that there would be nothing at all to pay until he was satisfied. I am sure that hon. Members can anticipate the sequel, that the slick salesman called and before the old couple knew where they were they found that they had signed the document, and out of their small resources they had to find £30 to £40. I can only describe people who do that kind of thing as nothing short of shameful. In fact the aid did not work.

Mr. Rhodes

I hope that my hon. Friend has also taken into account the practice of some high-pressure salesmen, who, having done some market survey on who the deaf people are—they do this particularly with elderly cottagers—push a card through their door saying, "Sorry you were out when I called" without having called at all, in order to make the suggestion that the people's hearing is worse than it actually is.

Mr. Palmer

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am sure he is right, but I want to be fair on this matter. I put down a Question on this subject which attracted some attention and, as a result, some of the vendors of these appliances—they have an association—came to me and urged on me a remedy for this kind of situation, one which I cannot mention, because of the circumstances in which we are debating this evening. I think that the remedy should be clear to hon. Members who think about it. These vendors said that they were anxious to stamp out these practices. I should be glad to hear from my hon. Friend if he has anything to say on this issue. What can the Government do within their existing powers? I am certainly not an advocate of restriction for restriction's sake, and I would agree with those who say that the surest safeguard is to acquire a good knowledge of materials and qualities, and not rush to buy something just because it is being cleverly sold, or has been cleverly advertised, in short, that the best protection for the consumer is always self-protection.

Nevertheless, I must remind my hon. Friend that the Government have promised public action, and the noble Lady Baroness Elliot, who is Chairman of the Consumer Council, recently reminded the Government of the need for action. Without being too critical, I thought that she was in too much of a hurry to suggest that the Government were not acting quickly, but that may be because of her past political background; I do not know. I agree that the Council is doing a useful job within its limited powers.

I was interested in a speech which Lady Elliot made to the Newcastle branch of the Electrical Association for Women. She referred to electrical appliances, of which I have some knowledge, and spoke about decisive action having been required for some years past to reduce the number of fatal accidents caused in the home by faulty manufacture or wiring of electrical appliances. I agree that the number of accidents which have occurred as a result of faulty workmanship is a scandal that has gone on for far too long.

The British Standards Institution, a valuable semi-public, semi-voluntary body, has for a considerable time laid down good standards for electrical appliances. No doubt the majority of reputable British manufacturers adhere to its standards, but the B.S.I. seems to be in no position to enforce its standards on the less reputable, back street manufacturers and importers of electrical appliances.

I wonder, therefore, whether the Ministry has this problem in mind and is considering a remedy within its existing powers. I must not mention legislation, but is there action which the Government could take under the powers already available? There is, for example, increased consumer education, which has already been mentioned. The Government must have some responsibility for this. There is the better testing of products and the fuller investigating of complaints. It might be thought that local authorities are the best medium for this task, but have they the trained staff to do it?

Machinery is needed for the examination of voluntary guarantees issued by manufacturers and others. This needs close supervision. Much is being done on this score by those responsible on their own account, but just as the State stepped in years ago to ensure that there was honesty in weights and measures, so the need for honesty in consumer standards generally is equally urgent.

Whether or not one is affluent is a matter of personal opinion. Looking at it from the point of view of society in the West—since in other parts of the world our views are not always shared—I suppose that if one is low down on the income ladder one might say that one is not affluent, but if one is doing well and is high up on the ladder one might think in terms of affluence. It was ever thus.

But there is not the slightest doubt that by all the average standards of material comfort and possessions most British people are better off now than they were when I first started to take an interest in politics in my 'teens. As a Socialist, I welcome that fact, because I believe that it is only on the basis of great abundance of material goods and services that we can get an equal society. In fact, I believe that practical equality depends on a high degree of affluence.

But every advance in human affairs brings with it new problems for solution, in just the same way as, when we are climbing a mountain, we think we have reached the top only to find yet another crest ahead. Nevertheless, these are problems that democracy, and a democratic Government, if it is to justify itself, must succeed in solving, and amongst the urgent problems in the so-called affluent society—a society linked to some kind of market economy—one high priority concerns the consumer, his complaints and his protection. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have caught your eye in this debate.

5.41 a.m.

Mr. Ioan L. Evans (Birmingham, Yardley)

This discussion on consumer protection has been most interesting, and it is a subject which one would hope that Parliament would find time to discuss each year in order to see what progress has been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) outlined the continual dangers facing the consumer. Although I am sure that hon. Members would welcome increased Anglo-American trade, we would all wish to prevent the rejects from the American economy coming into this country, and we should seek some means of preventing this form of economic exploitation that is being imported.

My hon. Friend and others have referred to the part the Co-operative movement has played in consumer protection. The movement, which started in this country, has now spread to all corners of the world, and in it we have an example of a consumers' organisation run in a democratic way on a non-profit basis, returning the benefits of its enterprise to its members, while seeking to get those who join in it to participate democratically in its activities. As we get more consumer conscious in the years ahead, I think that the movement in its various forms will play a greater part, not just on the retail side but in housing schemes which protect the tenants, and in similar ways.

The question of consumer protection has come to the fore in recent years, and this debate has been preceded by a debate in another place initiated by the noble Lady, the Baroness Burton of Coventry. It is good that in both Houses there should be concern over this matter. In 1955, the Consumer Advisory Council of the British Standards Institution was set up, and in July, 1959, the Molony Committee's Report led to the formation of the Consumer Council.

In their references to the Consumer Council, some of my hon. Friends have been more critical than others, but one major criticism of the Council as it has functioned so far is that it has not enough authority. It is the nucleus of an organisation which, given greater scope and authority, might do much better. It has not got the teeth necessary to bite on the problems confronting it. The Consumer Council has not the resources to make the information in its possession widely known. We as Members of Parliament receive copies of the leaflets which it issues, but these are not generally known to the housewife, and it is important that the information at the disposal of the Council should be known to every housewife.

It would be out of order to discuss future legislation, so I do no more than mention in passing that the Merchandise Marks Act is likely to be revised.

Some hon. Members argue that advertising plays an important part in the economy, but, from the point of view of the consumer, it must be remembered that, year by year, a growing amount is spent on advertising. The total in 1960 was £417 million, as compared with £91 million in 1938. The fall in the value of the £ does not account for all the difference by any means. I was told in answer to a Question to the President of the Board of Trade that something approaching £500 million a year is now being spent on advertising.

A great deal of this advertising is wasteful. It is argued that advertising makes mass production and lower prices possible, but this is debatable. What are the rival advertisers in the "soap war" on television getting at by their slogans? Some of the products are manufactured by the same concern. What does "Washes whiter than white" mean? In the end, of course, it is the consumer who pays for this wasteful advertising, whether on the television screen or in the newspapers.

There is wasteful advertising of medicines. Twenty-five unbranded aspirin tablets can be bought for 4d., yet similar tablets, advertised at the cost of £500,000 a year, are priced at 1s. 8½d. for 27. I take those figures from a booklet on consumer protection. This is another example of the way the consumer pays more than he need for a product because of advertising.

Then there is the question of the advertising of different brands of petrol. On 18th August, 1962, the Financial Times had this to say of petrol advertising encouraging motorists to use super grade fuel: In the case of the vast majority of models a premium petrol with octane rating of between 93–99 is perfectly satisfactory. Many motorists have been content to pay the extra because they were dazzled by octane ratings and the emphasis placed on it in oil companies' advertising. The consumer is hoodwinked into believing something that is not true. The time is coming to consider some form of taxation on advertising. This is already done in Italy. We might well consider a tax on domestic advertising to encourage more advertising abroad in order to help exports and reduce internal consumption.

There are many new developments in the retail trade. We have had the Industrial Revolution and now a revolution is taking place in retailing through the development of supermarkets, self-service stores, big mail order houses, a vast increase in hire purchase, mobile shops and an army of door-to-door salesmen. All this is clear evidence of a new pattern in the retail trade. Under the old system, one went to the "co-op" or the shop on the corner. There was a relationship between consumer and shopkeeper. That brought about a system of fair play. But it has broken down. There is now large-scale advertising and there are more dangers to the consumer.

Reference has been made to the dangers of door-to-door salesmen. The Consumer Council leaflet: How to say 'No' to a doorstep salesman put forward five points for the guidance of housewives in resisting those bringing pressure to bear on the doorstep:

1. "1. Watch your budget.
2. 2. Make joint family decisions on important purchases.
3. 3. Keep your mind on the thing you are buying and not on the story the salesmen tells you. Do you really want what he is offering?
4. 4. Make quite sure of the total price to be paid on hire purchase, the delivery and the name of the firm and the servicing where that matters.
5. 5. Before signing anything take time to think."

I know that the Board of Trade has issued instructions on this question of hire purchase and that progress has already been made. But it is important to consider some action to deal with the tremendous growth in the number of doorstep salesmen who are exploiting the public. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East referred to the education book salesmen who claim that they have books that it is essential for children to have if they are to get through the 11-plus or get on in their comprehensive school.

There are various ways and means of encouraging people to think that these books should be obtained for education. Some of these salesmen say they come from "the education department" and parents receive the impression that this means the local education authority. But it is merely the education department of a commercial concern selling its books for profit and exploiting the public in this way.

Perhaps hon. Members have had experience of switch selling. For example, people go from door to door selling vacuum cleaners, having advertised remodelled vacuum cleaners at a very low cost. After a demonstration in the house these are seen to be worthless, but alongside the cheap model which does not work is an expensive model which does work. The lady signs a form committing herself to considerable expense in buying the more expensive model.

There are magazine salesmen. They suggest that they are Commonwealth students and they go from door to door seeking subscriptions and telling people that if they make subscriptions they will help these students through some scholarship.

If we strengthen the Consumer Council, there are a number of functions which it does not have at the moment which it could have in future. It could consider testing products for quality, durability and fitness. The pioneering work has been done by the Consumer Association, which has established itself and has built up a considerable membership. It brings out the publication Which? every month and it tests products and gives an independent opinion on the quality of those products.

When the consumer goes into a retail shop to buy, for example, a refrigerator or a television set—some product which he buys perhaps only once in 10 years or even 30 years—it is important that he should have an independent opinion on quality and price from a responsible body. It is impossible for the consumer to test the product. I hope that this function which has been pioneered by the Consumer Association will be taken over by the Consumer Council on a national basis.

There is a need to examine consumers' complaints. There are county or city analysts who analyse foodstuffs. This could be done on a greater scale. In view of the abuses in advertising there is need to supervise advertising regulations and hire-purchase credit trading and similar agreements and to examine warranties and guarantees for goods and services. The consumer in this country is not afforded the protection which is needed. There has been a suggestion for setting up a Ministry of Consumer Welfare. We have a Minister of Labour and other Ministers. Why not a Minister of Consumer Welfare? I hope that we shall see some move to create such a Ministry so that the Minister can deal with these problems in the House.

5.59 a.m.

Mr. Norman Atkinson (Tottenham)

There has been a suggestion that we should have a Minister for Consumer Protection. It is difficult to draw a line between that suggestion and the appointment of an Ombudsman, because there is little difference between the problems with which the Ombudsman would deal and those with which a Minister for Consumer Protection would deal.

Mr. Rhodes

As I understand it, the Ombudsman is meant primarily to act as a watchdog over complaints against administrative parties, rather than against private institutions. He has a different function.

Mr. Atkinson

My hon. Friend may be perfectly right in that sense, but I do not think he can be so clear about drawing this distinction. We all have an interest as consumers of services and goods, and if we are concerned with consumer protection we must also be concerned with protecting ourselves against abuses within Government service, and from that—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King)

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so early in his speech, but to establish an Ombudsman would require legislation, and that is outwith this debate.

Mr. Atkinson

I am sorry for wandering there, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. To me it has been a fascinating experience to listen to, and take part in, this debate. I have been listening to it for some nine hours, and I have enjoyed it as a stimulating experience, something quite new in my life. But I have worked nights for a good long period, so it is no strange experience for me to be up at this time of the morning. This debate has been fascinating, because of the variation of talents in the House, and all that I have listened to this morning has been of equal interest.

I was very interested in the eloquence of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. William Yates), and I am sorry that I cannot take up the points which he raised. It would only confuse hon. Members if I attempted to develop some of the points that he made. We were talking at one time about consumer protection in the Jordan. It was almost a kind of theory and practice of "El Cid". I do not detract from the sincerity of the hon. Member's remarks, but I thought it was something of an abuse of the debate to steal a march, in the sense of introducing a subject which was somewhat removed from consumer protection in this country, with which we are concerned. Certainly, I should like to have facts on consumer protection in the Middle East. I recognise that the hon. Member opposite had every right to raise this subject, but he cannot expect that we will follow accurately some of the points which he raised. However, I am sure that we should like to hear from him at some other time, because he made some interesting points which were very germane to the present international situation.

I should like to come back to some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose). This experience this morning has been interesting, because if this is any indication of what our morning sittings are to be like, I am all in favour of them. It is a good thing if this is the new style, the new type, of "instant Parliament" with morning sittings. In a sense, it is a stimulating experience, particularly from the point of view of London Members, because we have always complained most bitterly that we have never been able to catch the eye of the Press, as they are either just waking up or going to bed, so far as the London Members are concerned. The fact that we can speak at this hour, and catch the Evening Standard and the Evening News—if they are listening—will be a good thing so far as our constituents are concerned.

Therefore, this is a new experience in Parliamentary life. It is an extension of democracy and Parliament is at its best. We are, in fact, reaching out to a new audience from this hour. I welcome it from that point of view. It is something which is well worth while, and something we ought to recognise as being a step forward in Parliamentary procedure, and something we ought to encourage.

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

The hon. Member is deluding himself if he thinks the sort of exhibition which he and his hon. Friends are putting up today deliberately to kill an important Bill which comes into today's business will find any favour at all outside this House.

Mr. Atkinson

I thank my hon. Friend for making this comment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Friend?"]—well, he may be a friend. I can assure the hon. Member opposite that he has no idea yet what I am going to say, and I am sure that what I have got to say will be of interest to the Press, particularly the London Press.

Mr. Rhodes

Will my hon. Friend agree with me—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Will the hon. Member speak up and speak to the Chair, please? I cannot hear him.

Mr. Rhodes

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I wonder if my hon. Friend will agree with me that the intervention we have just heard from the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) is most extraordinary, in that the hon. Member should regard a debate on consumer protection as being an exhibition?

Mr. Atkinson

I thank my hon. Friend for that reminder and the extent to which this commentary can go. I consider that this is a constructive and very useful debate, and I am proud to be taking part in it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member has now made a quite long introduction to his speech. I hope that he will now come to the topic he wants to raise.

Mr. Atkinson

Certainly, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am coming back to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East when he introduced this controversial note, if I may call it so, as to consumer resistance in certain sections of our trading community. He was talking at one time about the attraction of stamp trade and people being induced to purchase even though they might not be altogether satisfied as to the quality of the goods they were purchasing; they were induced to do so by the stamp. Then he referred to the working class and he associated a certain gullibility with the working class and the purchase of goods under these conditions. I would say to him that some time ago the working class learned that "philately will get you nowhere"—if I may title that kind of trading that way—and that kind of trading is out. I am glad to say that, though this was a trading trend some time ago, we are now seeing a diminution of it.

Mr. Rhodes

There is a little bit of confusion here, because I did not per- sonally refer to stamp trading. I think it was another hon. Member who did. It so happens that my hobby is philately, though that is completely irrelevant.

Mr. Atkinson

I am sorry if I confused the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley.

I wanted to link this with the fact that consumer protection in this country is not anything like adequate. Although they have made comments from time to time the various consumer associations are in no position to protect people from excessive pressure we have seen in the gift approach—

Mr. Robert Cooke

If the hon. Member does not recall the reason why trading stamps are on the way out, as he said, let me remind him that it is because of a Measure which was introduced into this House by a Member on my side, a Tory Member, in the last Parliament, a Measure rather like the excellent Bill which is being introduced at 11.0 o'clock today, if hon. Members opposite do not prevent the introduction of that valuable example of private Members' legislation.

Mr. Atkinson

I well remember that phase of legislation. But one cannot legislate against a motorist, for instance, driving into a garage and asking for the petrol of his choice. Yet these days motorists are not so ready to get their petrol at a garage which advertises stamps, gift tokens and so on. There is coming to be a certain reluctance to accept these means of encouraging trade.

Some good work has been done by the Consumer Association. It is a nonprofit-making organisation, closely associated with many members of the Government. Good though it may be, unfortunately it cannot influence the design of commodities. It can to some extent pinpoint weaknesses in the design of consumer goods but it cannot influence design by making creative suggestions. This weakness can be overcome only by the establishment of standards, and this must involve protection by the Government. The consumer protection movement at the moment cannot direct or stimulate design; it cannot be creative in this sense. Therefore, the job must be undertaken by the Government. I hope that at some time we can expect to get direct influence into the design of products and guarantees to consumers because of standards set by the Government.

I will illustrate this in terms of motor cars. Ministers of Transport have spoken about this. It is a question of Government standards and how far the Government can go. Consumer protection involves a guarantee not only of the quality of the vehicle but of its roadworthiness in relation to other vehicles. These are the broader aspects of consumer protection. When one buys a motor car one should be assured that one buys a vehicle which conforms to standards which make it a competent vehicle in relation to others. Bumpers should all be of a certain thickness of metal, of a certain design and a certain height from the ground. That would not detract from competition between manufacturers, but would ensure that the user had a vehicle equipped with bumpers to deal with emergency or difficulty which might be experienced by him. It is good consumer protection to think in terms of the design of the vehicle in relation to its use. We should then not have parking difficulties, breakages, damaged headlights, interlocking of cars and so on. This whole field ought to be explored.

Mr. Fell

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am a little concerned because there do not seem to be—

Mr. Ivor Richard (Barons Court)

Further to the point of order—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. I have not yet heard the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell).

Mr. Fell

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was drawing your attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members in the Chamber.

Mr. Richard

Further to that point of order. Can you help me Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Is it in order for a Member of the Opposition to call a Count when there are only three Members of the Opposition present in the Chamber?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

May I answer the second point of order first? All hon. Members have exactly the same rights and it is in order for any hon. Member to seek to call the attention of the Chair to the number of Members present. It is for the Chair to decide on how many occasions or how soon after a Count he accedes to an hon. Member's request to call another count.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

6.17 a.m.

Mr. Atkinson

I was talking about bumpers. It may be that motorists are concerned only with the appearance of a car and may not demand much in the way of quality, but as consumers they are entitled to certain standards which may not be too obvious. We should be concerned not only with the design of the bumpers, but with the quality of the chromium plate, and the mere thickness of chromium plate does not suggest its quality. The motorist should have some guarantee about what is under the brilliant chromium finish, too.

There are other parts of the car whose standards should be ensured. For instance, there are the lights, the trafficators, or winking lights, or indicators, or whatever the name may be. Successive Ministers of Transport have failed to do anything about the luminosity, or intensity, of these indicators. There are wide variations in the quality of these and other fittings.

I think that as an essential part of consumer protection we ought to establish some standards for thickness of lens, type of lens, brilliance of the lights, luminosity of the lights, their size, their position, and so on. This would help to eliminate the tremendous expense in which motorists are involved as a result of broken lights, and so on, due to bad parking. Thanks to the pseudo-Americanism that is creeping in here, motorists parking their cars tend to behave like drivers in control of shunting engines. They use their cars to push other cars out of the way, and in so doing cause considerable damage—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. This is very interesting, but is the hon. Member suggesting that the Government can do something about all this, with or without legislation? If the Government can do something about it by means of legislation, the hon. Member is out of order in discussing it, and if the Government cannot do anything about it, he is also out of order.

Mr. Atkinson

I think that the Government should indicate their desires to the manufacturers, and in so doing draw the attention of the manufacturers to the needs of the consumer. If we are talking about protecting the consumer, we should point out the sort of things about which the consumer is thinking, but which he cannot bring to the notice of the manufacturers without the aid of the Government.

The motorist should be given some guarantee of the kind of vehicle that he is about to purchase. We should make certain that it measures up to the needs of modern conditions. I am certain that the average motorist, when he goes to a showroom, does not carefully and closely scrutinise the whole vehicle that he is proposing to buy to make sure that it has such things as windscreen washers which work efficiently, yet one's experience of driving along a motorway shows that these are essential. Therefore, in order to protect the intending consumer, we ought to lay down standards and say that every vehicle will be equipped with things of this kind.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. We could lay down those standards only by legislation. The hon. Member cannot talk about proposed legislation in this debate.

Mr. Atkinson

I am sorry to have offended again, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but perhaps I can go on to draw the attention of the House to a remarkable situation which exists, particularly in London. London is not more dishonest than any other part of the country—in fact just the opposite—but we know something of the problem. I am referring to car stealing. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware that every year between 50,000 and 65,000 cars are stolen from our streets, and that no fewer than 3,000 of those vehicles never find their way back to their owners. The police have no knowledge of the whereabouts of those vehicles. This is a tremendous problem, and one which we ought to consider very carefully. It is something which the consumer bears in mind when he goes to buy his car.

In quoting those figures of stolen cars, I am not referring to the practice of the Metropolitan Police of driving away vehicles without the owner's consent from time to time. This practice is on the increase in London, but I have not included cars removed in this way in the figures of stolen cars. The point is that thieves take these stolen cars to quiet back streets and ransack them in their own time. They remove all the fittings, such as the radio, the spot lamp, and so on, without being observed by the public. This seems to be the real reason for driving away vehicles in this fashion.

There ought to be some protection against theft. The manufacturer should follow a code of behaviour in the design of locks. Some modern motor cars are fitted with locks which can be demolished completely by a blow in the right place. In some cases the manufacturers have even aided the intending thief by engraving on the locks the number of the requisite key, so that the theif does not have to try a whole bundle of keys to find the right one. The motorist who buys a car should have some assurance that that sort of thing cannot happen. Anti-thief devices should be fitted which ensure that the motorist is guaranteed protection against thefts of this kind. In the absence of any standards suggested by the Government, designers do not pay much attention to the question of security.

Mr. T. Urwin (Houghton-le-Spring)

Would my hon. Friend care to say something about the theft of petrol from petrol tanks in cars, which is another very important aspect of the matter?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Before the hon. Member continues, I want to emphasise once more that it is not merely sufficient to complain about the state of the world in general; the hon. Member must link up his remarks with administrative action which the Government can take or have failed to take.

Mr. Atkinson

I thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. This matter is of tremendous concern to motorists. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for drawing my attention to the question of caps for petrol tanks. There again, there is a complete absence of standards, or a tremendous variation among manufacturers.

Motoring matters are not generally considered as part of this problem; that is why I have spent some time in drawing them to the attention of the House. In West Germany standards are built into all cars by the manufacturers, and the purchasers are adequately protected. They also know that their vehicles comply with the required standards. When they use them on the autobahns they know that their vehicles are guaranteed to stand up to any difficulties that they may encounter when driving long distances at fast speeds.

The bumpers and the lights on the car do not in fact dazzle other drivers, nor does one meet the multiplicity of designs, shapes, sizes and luminosities that are found in this country. There is a standard, a pattern, accepted by manufacturers which has been of tremendous help and assistance to all motorists there. This is something which I should like to see introduced into Britain as a means of making motoring safer and easier, and giving the motorist much more value for his money—in fact giving the motorist consumer protection.

6.31 a.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling)

I hope that my hon. Friends will allow me at this stage to intervene in the debate—I repeat intervene—while I can remember the many points raised. I am sure that those of my hon. Friends who have not spoken will accept my assurance that any additional issues they may wish to raise in subsequent speeches will be taken fully into account.

I am glad that this very important subject has been raised and that we have devoted this time to it, because we do not have many opportunities to discuss consumer problems. It is a coincidence, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Ioan L. Evans) mentioned, that we have had similar debates in both Houses this week. It would be rather unfortunate if these important problems, affecting so many people in this country, should be discussed only in the other place and not here.

The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) has made many constructive propositions about car design and what we ought to do about safety standards and so on. I agree with very much of what he has said, but this is a matter for the Ministry of Transport and my hon. Friend, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, who heard my hon. Friend's interesting and constructive speech, has assured me that what he said will be taken fully into consideration by his Ministry.

There is one criticism I should like to make of some of the contributions that have been made to this debate. I have been rather surprised that some of my hon. Friends have given credit to the Molony Committee and other bodies for the initiatives and ideas for which this party of ours is responsible. We ought to get the record straight now and again. It was this party that proposed the setting up of a Consumer Council years before the Molony Committee was appointed. I do not want to go into a great deal of detail, but the general run of recommendations of the Molony Committee was advocated by us years before the Committee was set up.

The need for more activity in this field of consumer protection has been stressed by many of my hon. Friends, and particularly by the hon. Members for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) and Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), both of whom pointed out that new products are now on the market, more complicated products than ever before, and that in addition we have a great expansion of the packaging of goods so that shoppers cannot accurately assess the quality, composition and performance of the goods they buy until they have opened the package.

Questions have been asked about how it is possible to guarantee that the customer gets value for money. Of course, the answer is that we must have informative labelling on the packets and honest advertising of the products.

So far as informative labelling goes, the Consumer Council, as I am sure many of my hon. Friends know, is doing the preparatory work for the introduction of informative labelling schemes in association with the British Standards Institution. I am sure all hon. Members will hope that their efforts in this direction will be successful.

As for the introduction, if one can put it like that, of measures to ensure that all advertising is honest, straightforward and in no way misleading, this line of argument places me in something of a difficulty, because the most important part of the job involves legislation, and I cannot speak about that. But so far as concerns the voluntary application of standards by the advertisers, by the owners of media that put out advertisements—newspapers, television, posters and so on—standards are being voluntarily argued out and voluntarily applied. But a great deal more needs to be done by the advertising interests themselves—I have made this point several times in debates in this House and in speeches elsewhere—and we hope that, as a result of constant criticism and pressure, this will be done.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) when he opened this part of our discussions tonight, mentioned many of the objectionable practices of doorstep salesmen—practices which all of us must condemn. He mentioned, for instance, doorstep salesmen selling books and using sales techniques which mislead the householder; techniques where the seller comes along and says that he is engaged in a market research operation or is representing an education authority. These, again, are matters which will be dealt with by legislation, but, in the meantime, a great deal might be done by public criticism of the methods, on the one hand, and by helping housewives to understand what their rights and responsibilities are, on the other.

As a result of public criticism, as I think my hon. Friend knows, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, for instance, has assured us that it has dropped the sales techniques that were criticised and no longer allows its staff to use the market research approach or go in for repeated telephone calls. Of course, we welcome this assurance from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and we hope that other booksellers will follow suit.

As I say, I cannot go into detail, but some of the practices that are complained of are practices that will be made illegal when we have dealt with the whole question of misrepresentation and misdescription of goods and services in new legislation.

I am also aware not only of the practices that have been complained of but of the advice that has been given by many citizens' advice bureaux, and, where local authorities are concerned with this, I am aware of the advice that has been given to the victims in these cases. Those that I have in mind are at the moment subject to legal proceedings which, again, rather puts a handicap on the possibilities of my developing the kind of advice that has been given. But, although I cannot discuss the advice in detail in the cases I have in mind because legal proceedings are being taken, a great deal can be done by citizens' advice bureaux and local authorities throughout the country to tell people who get into difficulties just precisely what their action should be and what the consequences would be of allowing legal action to be taken, with legal aid provided. If cases of misrepresentation of this kind were fought, even under existing law, and if publicity were given to them, I feel sure that many of these disreputable practices would be dropped, because it certainly would not be in the interests of the firms concerned to continue with them.

Furthermore, on the question of doorstep salesmen, the House should know that the Consumer Council has said that it will undertake, as, I think, it is doing, a study into what can be done to get rid of disreputable practices. Whether this involves legislation or whether action can be taken under existing legislation depends upon the outcome of the inquiries that the Consumer Council will be making.

There are difficulties here, as far as this debate is concerned, because any system of licensing and registration which may be the outcome of the inquiries will involve legislation. At any rate, the Consumer Council has made a start by publishing its booklet, "How to say 'No' to a doorstep salesman", and we hope that this will have the widest possible publicity through citizens' advice bureaux, and so on. Attention should be drawn to the excellent series of articles which have appeared this week in Sun by Miss Elizabeth Gundrey, whose articles on doorstep salesmen will, I understand, be published in booklet form. This again is something on which wide distribution would help enormously.

I am aware of the Concert Hall Record Club, to which my hon. Friend referred, and the Vita Safe Plan. We are in touch with the Consumer Council about this matter but here, too, I am in difficulty, because there is a possibility of a libel action in this connection and I do not want to get involved in discussion about that at this stage.

In referring to the Universal Health Studios, I am sorry that I am anticipating something that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) may say. I hope that he will say it, because the more publicity that we can give to the kind of criticism which he has been developing, the better it will be for everybody since, as I said in the adjournment debate for which my hon. Friend was responsible, we cannot, in present circumstances, take the action that we should like to take in matters of this kind. Again, legislation is needed.

We understand, however, that the new chairman and managing director of the firm has said that he will reorganise the company and its policy. We have had a great many statements about the company and its policies and we should like to see results before we make any comment about the proposition. But I understand that the proposals that have been put forward, if they are carried out by the new managing director, will mean that the high-pressure sales methods will be discontinued and that the sales procedure manual will be dropped—this was one of the main causes of our complaints against the company—and, second, that the form of contract will be revised. Of course, we have also had the promise that those members who want to renounce their contracts for medical reasons will be able to do so.

Mr. Dodds

Will I be allowed to say, as I have waited seven hours and more, that I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but there is no likelihood of that, and the trail of misery has been increased?

Mr. Darling

I am not saying categorically that these promises will be carried out. As I say, we want to see the results, but I hope that the promises will be carried out in this respect by the new people who are apparently running the company.

Mr. Harold Lever

Has my hon. Friend any powers to take action at present under the Companies Act or any other such legislation?

Mr. Darling

No. The point about the Companies Act, which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford will raise—perhaps I can mention it now very briefly, because I do not want to stop him giving publicity to the point of view which he wants to raise—is that the reference in Section 165 of the Companies Act to members, I am advised, is a reference to shareholders. I am glad to have the assurance from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever). Of course, the members of the Universal Health Studios are not shareholders. They are customers who have signed contracts to pay a certain sum of money for a period of time. Therefore, unless the shareholders complain, we cannot bring Section 165 into operation. The shareholders are not complaining, for quite obvious reasons.

Until we have the new legislation dealing with misrepresentation, it will be impossible to catch these people for misrepresentation and the high-pressure salesmanship which has caused people to sign contracts without knowing quite what the contracts mean.

Mr. Rhodes

Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is an extraordinary fact that this weakness exists in British law, after so many years of consumer exploitation particularly in the 1950's? Is this not a condemnation of the inaction and apathy of the previous Government?

Mr. Darling

Of course it is a criticism of the previous Government. It took five years of prodding on our part to get them to set up the Molony Committee or to take some action on investigation of complaints, and it has taken them all this time to take action on the recommendations of the Molony Committee itself. In fact, all that we have had following the Molony Report is the seting up of the Consumer Council, with terms of reference which we think are too weak, and the introduction of the new Hire Purchase Act, which again did not go as far as many of us wanted it to go.

The next point with which I want to deal was raised, I think, by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley. He said—and this is, to some extent, perfectly true—that consumer protection administration is scattered over several Ministries, and ought now to be brought together. This is a constitutional exercise, and I do not know what kind of priority my hon. Friend would give to it in present circumstances, but there are things which can be done, even before this proposition is given consideration. We have, in effect, a division in the Board of Trade dealing with certain questions of consumer protection, and there is growing up very close co-ordination with similar divisions in other Ministries. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for instance, which has taken over many of the functions of the old Ministry of Food and is responsible for such legislation as the Food and Drugs Act and for food standards, is in the closest co-operation with the Board of Trade. This is true also of the administration of the Consumer Protection Act by the Home Office.

I was asked why the Home Office is still responsible for the Consumer Protection Act. The answer is that we are here dealing with what I might call criminal sanctions because safety standards are involved as well as administration and enforcement. That is in the hands of the police and the fire service. If this were handed over to the Board of Trade, in present circumstances the Board of Trade would have to go to the Home Office, the police and the fire services for enforcement. At any rate, as the system works now there is close co-operation between the Home Office and the Board of Trade on the application of the Consumer Protection Act and the enforcement of the standards set up by regulations under that Act.

I was also asked why the Merchandise Marks Acts were not more strictly enforced. Enforcement is not the real weakness, but the Acts themselves. They are very much out of date and they do not deal with modern problems in the way in which we want modern shopping and consumer problems tackled.

The reason why action can be taken by individuals is that they are common informers in this context and under the relevant Statutes they can make complaints. For example, one of the bodies which is most active in this sphere is the Retail Trading Standards Association, which acts as common informer in cases where the Association finds that the Merchandise Marks Acts have not been complied with in regard to the description of goods. Then it takes the necessary legal action. This question of enforcement also needs to be put right and, to go out of order very briefly, in the new legislation the enforcing bodies will be the local authorities, so the matter will be put right.

Several of my hon. Friends raised the question of consumer education and they discussed this in association with the work of the Consumer Council. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done here and the Council is, I agree, the right body to do it. Discussions are going on between the Council and the Department, although I stress that the Council is a completely independent body. It does not take instructions from the Board of Trade. In fact, the system works the other way round. The Council suggests to the Department what might be done about legislation and so on. We have a close association with the Council and discussions are going on to see how best the consumer education work of the Council can be developed. Assistance is given to consumers by voluntary and independent bodies such as consumer associations, local consumer groups and the Co-operative movement's educational activities.

I said that I would deal with the question of local authority administration. The experiment which is taking place in Sheffield is well worth examination, and I am proud that that experimental work is going on in the city which I have the honour partly to represent. The Sheffield City Council has appointed in its Weights and Measures Department a consumer protection officer. Without going into detail on the work he does, he is, I gather, now handling about 70 complaints from local citizens each month. His score of successes is remarkably high, no doubt because he telephones from the town hall to try to get things put right when customers bring their grievances to him. It is on that side of his activities—the fact that he can get manufacturers and traders to put right things that have gone wrong, replace goods that have fallen to pieces, allow the customer to have a credit note or get the money back for goods purchased—that this development, this experimental work, should be looked at.

As I have said, much of the legislation now in force—and, indeed, contemplated—will fall on weights and measures departments of local authorities, and some of my hon. Friends have rightly asked whether we shall have enough inspectors—and inspectors with the right training and qualifications—to do the work that will be increasingly put upon them. I can tell my hon. Friends that improvements in recruiting and training inspectors are being pursued by many local authorities at present. This is a step in the right direction, but I think that it will be incumbent upon us to consider afresh the status and training, and the responsibilities that will fall upon all these weights and measures inspectors in the future.

As I have indicated, I cannot go into detail about future legislation, but I am sure that the services of these people in future will have to lead to a change in their name. Whether they should be called consumer protection officers, I do not know, but their field of activities will certainly be very much wider than it now is.

My hon. Friends have also referred to so-called guarantees given by many manufacturers with their products. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley who drew attention to the limited value of a large number of manufacturers' guarantees which, in return for what are considered the benefits of the warrantee, have exclusion clauses written in that either deprive the customer of his civil rights of redress in relation to the goods in question or impose charges for labour and transport involved in having the goods repaired. The Consumer Council has drafted what it considers to be the ideal form of guarantee. It contains positive assurances to shoppers, and we hope that as a result of persuasion at this stage—and it can only be done by persuasion at this stage—we can get more and more manufacturers to adopt this form of guarantee.

The background to the problem is that the Molony Committee in its final Report on consumer protection dealt at some length with the whole question of guarantees, warranties, contracting out of liability, and so on, and came to the conclusion that freedom to make a contract in whatever terms the parties pleased is a principle of English law, and that this principle is embodied in the sale of goods legislation—another piece of legislation that we must look at later on.

But the Molony Committee pointed out that to sign away in a document the civil rights that a person ought to have does not deprive the customer of a legal basis for complaint. This is a long and complicated argument, but the point is that, unless we can introduce legislation to amend the Sales of Goods Act, the best way we can deal with the matter is by persuasion, by publicity, by criticism of existing guarantees in order to get as many manufacturers as possible—all manufacturers, in fact, if it can be done—to accept the form of guarantee proposed by the Consumer Council.

The question was also raised about standard printed contracts. Here again, a difficult legal problem is involved. But the form of contract which the Consumer Council has been considering and now has in mind would give a great deal of support and satisfaction to the wishes expressed by my hon. Friends if we could get all the people concerned, particularly those engaged in services, to accept it. Examples of the type of contract which is criticised can be found on railway tickets, cloakroom and parking tickets, laundry conditions of contract and conditions governing the carriage of goods. Many such contracts contain clauses which eliminate or reduce what would otherwise be the liability of the party who drafts the conditions, and this is usually liability for negligence.

The Molony Committee, when it discussed this problem, concluded that it was one facet of a much wider problem involving the whole question of liability in tort, and it did not think it right to make any recommendations concerning just one aspect of it. Therefore, the question of a standard form of contract also has to wait for other legislation. But, in the meantime, we shall pay careful attention to any recommendations which the Consumer Council may make to us for voluntary contracts to replace those now being complained of.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central raised the question of standards. I shall not discuss his complaint about the packaging of shirts. This is something about which the consumer ought to be allowed to express a view, and, of course, if there were a wide choice in all classes of goods which people want to buy, unboxed shirts, I take it, would be available. How to persuade manufacturers to accept my hon. Friend's point of view as against his view of what consumers want I do not know. Obviously, this is a matter which must be left to voluntary choice in some way or other.

Mr. Palmer

Shirt manufacturers could take a hint, could not they?

Mr. Darling

This is what I meant by persuasion. If they study this debate, they will probably get a lot of hints about how they should conduct their affairs.

My hon. Friend raised one or two important questions about standards, and he mentioned, in particular, electrical equipment. As he knows, the British Standards Institution is being pressed to produce standards in this connection which conform to international specifications. Clearly, this is a case in which one needs international standards enforced in all the countries which are trading with one another in electrical goods, particularly domestic electrical appliances.

When we have the standards—some are coming along—from the B.S.I., there will be the question of enforcement. At the moment, there can be enforcement only through the Consumer Protection Act on the basis of safety regulations. I should imagine that in most cases the safety regulation procedure will apply to electrical equipment when the standards are laid down because of the possible risk of accident. But this is a matter which is worth discussing further. To what extent standards are needed for safety purposes I would not like to say at this stage. I can only give my own guess, but I think that it would be impossible under present legislation to impose standards except on grounds of safety.

Mr. Fell

Would one really want to impose standards except for safety? Otherwise, might one not narrow the field of the manufacturer quite unnecessarily?

Mr. Darling

Yes. I think this is one of the points to be considered. I was going on to say that, on one side, we can enforce standards in questions of safety and, on the other side, we have to try to get some kind of standardised labelling on a voluntary basis. This must be pressed ahead. As I have said, the Consumer Council is already engaged on it.

Mr. Palmer

The point is that sound engineering standards would also be sound safety standards. They are inseparable.

Mr. Darling

Yes, but it is a question of information. I would agree with the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) that one requirement is a safety standard and this obviously must be enforced by law. But where it is a question of getting standardised standards—for information purposes to give an idea of the performance of the goods—we want to make sure that the customer, instead of being presented with a whole lot of different descriptions of the same kind of thing, gets a standard description for the same kind of thing from all kinds of manufacturers. This job has to be worked out by the Consumer Council and the B.S.I. I do not think that it will be at all difficult, in dealing with electrical appliances—which may well come first in this activity of the Consumer Council and the B.S.I.—to get the manufacturers to agree to standardised, informative labelling.

Mr. Ian Mikardo (Poplar)

We always seem to assume that there are only two possible things to do—first, to enforce for limited purposes like safety and, secondly, to secure voluntary agreement. Surely there are other moves open to the Government. Some other countries have done better in reducing unnecessary duplications of business without enforcement but merely by ensuring that public bodies that are purchasers of these classes of goods buy only to the standard specifications. If we did that with builders' goods for local authority building, for instance, and for electrical fittings and thousands of other things, this would be more powerful than enforcement and no more offensive than voluntary action.

Mr. Darling

I agree and, of course, there is a further thing which can be done but which I cannot mention now. I will write to my hon. Friend about it and tell him what is to be in future legislation with regard to informative labelling where the voluntary system breaks down.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central also raised the question of the testing of products and suggested that this might be done by the Government or some kind of Government agency. We have to distinguish here between the testing of products and the purposes of testing.

First, where testing is done to guide the choice of the consumer, in the way the job is done by Which?, I think this must be left to voluntary bodies because all kinds of subjective judgments will come into consideration. But clearly, if action is to be taken against manufacturers because they appear to have been misleading customers by misdescriptions of goods and the mislabelling of goods and services, obviously the testing has to be done to find out whether the claims made by the manufacturers are honest or misleading. There of course—again it is matter for future legislation—this kind of testing would have to be done in some way by the Government. That point is covered.

I will come to a conclusion shortly to give others of my hon. Friends the chance to speak. I am sorry that I had to intervene now but there was good reason. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central raised the question of the examination and investigation of consumer complaints. This has been excluded, as he knows, from the terms of references of the Consumer Council and we have to accept that for the time being. But at the moment, under the set-up we have inherited, there is a possibility of doing a very good job of work here. If we can make use of the citizens' advice bureaux and the local authorities to be the local eyes and ears of the Consumer Council, it will be possible to build up a body of information about consumers' complaints. If this can be channelled through the Consumer Council and appropriate action recommended, where action is needed, on the basis of the information which goes to the Consumer Council in this way, we can do a better job in dealing with consumers' complaints than has been possible in the past.

I assure my hon. Friend that we have this matter, too, under consideration, and we hope that we can build up a service through the C.A.Bs. and the local authorities—which are engaging increasingly in this work—so that we know what people are complaining about. We shall then have a clear idea of the action which must be taken either by the Government or by persuading manufacturers and traders to do a better job so that consumers' complaints do not arise. We have this matter under consideration.

On that note I will close, except to tell my hon. Friends whose speeches I interrupted that the points which they make will be taken into consideration.

7.12 a.m.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones (Eccles)

I want to raise, briefly, only two points, but they have been troubling me for some time. It has been said that the Devil can quote the Scriptures for his own purpose. It is true that an unscrupulous crooked salesman can use the law for his own evil ends, and I should like to draw attention to the use which certain people are making of a normal practice known as the default summons.

The Universal Health Studios have been using this device. It is a pernicious activity. When you query them and ask, "How many complaints have you had?", they say, "We have had about 300 complaints". When you ask, "Are all your members happy?", they say, "Yes, they are all happy." When you say, "Have you ever had occasion to take action against them?", they say, "We have taken legal action against 3,000 of them". I discovered that in Liverpool alone that organisation issued over 200 default summonses in July. They have issued hundreds of default summonses by the same method in Manchester County Court.

It is a simple matter to fill in part of the form which I have here. That is enough to set in motion a frightening process. This is happening to innocent people who do not normally come into contact with the law, and they find this sort of action very intimidating. If they make up their minds to fight to the bitter end, they find that these people are so unscrupulous that in the end a default summons is issued.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the feelings of innocent people when they receive three documents such as these? They are extremely confusing and quite baffling and very worrying to the recipient. In consequence, it is almost a form of legal blackmail being used to force money out of people. I have found from investigations that not only the Universal Health Studios are using this method. The device is used by all the unscrupulous sharks using these selling practices in this country. It would be in the interests of all consumers if greater publicity were given to this sort of activity.

When a default summons is issued, normally, from my short experience in the House, it is the M.P. who seems to be the constituent's best friend. But by the time the constituent gets over his first shock and writes to tell you that he has had it, and you have had time to consider the matter and reply, it is impossible for the person to get the answer back in eight days. But if he does not get the answer back in eight days, a judgment summons may be issued against him. It would seem to me that my hon. Friend would be well advised to take a second look at this procedure, which provides a straightforward open door to the unscrupulous.

The second point that I want to raise is something which has taxed my temper for some time. Before coming to this place I taught in a school, and it seems to me that the one person who never has had a fair deal in this matter is the parent of children going to local authority and other schools, who is compelled to clothe his children in school uniforms. I make the point that I believe in school uniforms, but I say that because I believe that a school uniform ought to be the cheapest method of clothing a child. But, unfortunately, as soon as a school uniform is adopted, the parent then becomes the target of some sharp trading practices. I can quote a simple example.

A headmaster arrived at a school in North Wales and decided to redesign the school uniform, and he chose it in three colours. This in itself was very expensive, as they were specially selected colours. Of course, we do not always get a lot of sun in North Wales, and in the dreary North Wales winter, during which this school uniform was intro- duced, the colours had faded within two months. When the parents of the growing children lengthened the sleeves, the children went to school looking like Joseph in his coat of many colours.

It seems to me that, if a local authority or a school insists upon parents clothing their children in a standard school uniform, they have usurped from the parents their freedom as consumers. Consequently, I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that, when school uniforms are insisted upon, his Department ought to make it crystal clear that the Retail Trading Standards Association has already laid down quite a good standard for blazer cloth and blazer material, which is hard-wearing, durable and reasonably cheap. It seems to me that, wherever the consumer is denied some of his rights, the person who usurps those rights ought to see that value for money can be obtained.

I shall not detain the House any longer. Those are the two points that I have waited for 7½ hours to make, and I urge hon. Members to consider them most carefully.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

7.20 a.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt (Willesden, West)

During the course of my contribution to this debate I wish to draw the attention of the House to protection of consumers of services, not only of consumers of goods, but before doing so may I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the need for some protection of consumers of services in the House? The heating service since four o'clock has been unfortunately low, and many of us are feeling cold. I hope that my comment may lead to some consumer protection for hon. Members who have been here all night.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey)

I will make inquiries and see what can be done.

Mr. Pavitt

I will not comment on all the interesting things which have been said during the debate on this subject, but will take up one from the excellent contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones). It must be the envy of all of us to be able to rise and make two points so distinctly, clearly and effectively. Most of us, if we could make points in that way in our speeches, would be more than satisfied.

I am grateful that only my hon. Friend the Minister of State intervened from the Front Bench because I think that there is much more some of us would still like to say in this debate. He made clear what some of us have often thought, that it is only on an occasion like this that usually we can debate consumer protection, a subject which has to be squeezed in between various other important things the House has to debate and decide.

The machinery of protection which exists at present needs strengthening, in addition to the need to create new machinery as time goes on. My hon. Friend the Minister talked about the Consumer Council. This needs strengthening. It needs more teeth, it needs a great deal more financial support than it gets at present. I pay tribute to the work of the citizens' advice bureaux and to the valuable work which that body of voluntary workers does, but unless they have increased grants consumers' protection will be too much for them; they need more money if they are to do their job.

My hon. Friend the Minister talked of the powers of the local authority inspectors and said that he was proposing to change their name. I should like to inform him that a change of name without a change of pay will not do anything to change the situation. We need to increase their pay and also to increase the status of the most necessary job they do for the community.

The debate has hinged on the housewives to a great extent. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) was very courageous and chivalrous in going to the protection of the ladies who buy "the little black dress". Most of us realise that this is a part of consumer protection which we can do little about. When it comes to questions of taste and choice, nobody can tell a lady what is the best that she can get for her money. Those hon. Gentlemen who look into ladies' millinery shops and see weird and wonderful goods marked at two guineas and 10 guineas can only wonder. It makes us realise that there is little one can do to protect the fair sex in matters of this kind.

In my constituency is a famous biscuit factory, belonging to McVitie and Price. There the packets of 8 oz. are always 8 oz. and are clearly marked, without any small print. There are no 6½ or 7 oz. packets. If one factory can do that, others can, too.

Several hon. Members have spoken about the need for education. It is, of course, most important. I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes), when he rather suggested that the working-class home had less access to knowledge and education in consumer choice and good buying. I am afraid that most working class wives have to learn in the school of experience. The fact that their purses are limited means they learn in a very hard school indeed, but they soon learn how best to lay out their money, because they have not much to lay out.

Existing organisations can do a good job. Young married people setting up home need to be able to select furnishings and furniture with some knowledge of what is good and what is cheapjack. It cannot be done by looking at packaging. It needs a great deal more knowledge than one can pick up. This is a job for local authorities by means of special classes for young marrieds. Promoted at the right time and in the right way these would attract young people and be a practical help to them.

I said that I would talk about services as well as goods. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) spoke about this in regard to motor cars. The consumer needs more protection here. I take my car to be serviced because I am no good at mechanics. The coupon mentions 23 items to be looked at at a set rate. I check what has been done. According to the coupon, the wheels ought to have been changed round, but on the last occasion this has not been done. I immediately wonder what other jobs on the coupon have not been done. Much the same argument applies to television repairs. We are entirely in the hands of the technician. Unless protection is afforded, there is no means by which a consumer can decide whether a new tube is needed for a television set and whether a repair should cost 5s., £5 or £20.

Perhaps we should achieve most success by establishing publicly-owned centres to deal with these matters—centres with no profit motive. With the funds which they have at their disposal, the A.A. and R.A.C. might consider extending their breakdown services and establishing their own garages where no profit would be made and where one would get the service that one asked for and where the members would be in control.

I would especially bring to the attention of the House the need for protection in respect of the consumption of drugs. I would quote from a recent B.M.A. conference: In a recent Report on Health Education of a Joint Committee of the Central and Scottish Health Services Councils, there appeared the following; "An unreasoning trust in the efficiency of patent medicines, based largely on the advertisements of the manufacturers, does much to hinder a true understanding of how health can be maintained and frequently leads to harmful delay in diagnosis and medically supervised treatment.' The panel discussing this went on: Reflect on the pharmaceutical junk that rests upon the shelves of the average retail pharmacy. Do we need to dose ourselves with vitamins, tonics, purgatives and such-like? What has the Pharmaceutical Society done to save consumers wasting money on this useless rubbish? Why doesn't the Society, instead of fretting about resale price maintenance, concern itself more with the fundamental question: "Is retail pharmacy a business or a profession?' I think that it is a profession, and that there is a duty on pharmacists to diminish this self-medication. In spite of the problems that general practitioners have, the general practitioner is the only person who can give medicine, because he is the only person who can diagnose what the complaint really is and prescribe the right treatment.

We have sought protection for consumers by means of the Dunlop Committee. It seeks to avoid further thalidomide troubles. But every few months we read in the Press about some drug which has been used for some time, but is now proving to be harmful in certain circumstances and to certain patients. I suggest that the minority Report of the Dunlop Committee, of which the former Member of Parliament for Putney, Sir Hugh Linstead, was the chief signatory, should be considered by the Government with a view to strengthening the machinery which exists but is not as effective as it might be.

At Cardiff last night, the Chairman of that Committee, Sir Derrick Dunlop, spoke of: formidable and skilled promotion of drugs by pharmaceutical houses, some of which is subject to justifiable criticism in violating truth and good taste". The public needs protection against this kind of thing. The dispensing of drugs is part of the general pattern of modern life. We rely upon it and it is very different from merely taking an occasional aspirin or bottle of cough mixture.

The Birmingham Public Analyst, Mr. F. G. Stock, has done more in this direction than any other figure in the pharmaceutical world. It is not just a matter of the therapeutic qualities of the drug, but whether what is on the label is in the bottle or in the label. I will not weary the House with a long list of the analyses which Mr. Stock has made, but among the examples are that of 120 samples of penicillin, 38 were found to be deficient, and one deficient by 90 per cent.; of 67 samples of barbiturates, 42 were rejected; anæsthetics are sometimes 20 per cent. stronger than the label says and two out of three firms' products proved to be entirely unsatisfactory.

Hon. Members have referred recently to technological advances. A new development in medicine has been the use of disposable syringes. It was found by Mr. Stock that there could be as much as a 20 per cent. variation between one syringe and another, and with modern drugs this could make an important difference to the treatment prescribed by a general practitioner. These are matters not of protecting only the consumer's pocket, but of protecting his health and his life. It may not be so important that an aspirin is more chalk than aspirin, but with modern, high-powered drugs it is extremely important because of the terrific damage which can result from a wrong dose, as we have seen in some cases.

There is another sense in which the consumer needs protection. The drug tetracycline is retailed at £5 per 100 tablets, the pharmacist getting £6 plus a dispensing fee. Under present import conditions, some importers can supply pharmacists with this drug at £2 per 100, which means that the consumer, in this case the National Health Service, is paying something more than £6 for an article which costs only £2 in the first place.

The National Health Service pays £100 million a year for drugs, yet an enormous amount of money goes into promotion costs so that these drugs can be distributed. The Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries has shown that £5.6 million was being spent on promotion three years ago, £1.9 million on mailing to doctors, £.8 million on free samples and £2.9 million on paying commercial travellers to persuade doctors to presscribe these medicines. I understand that the total figure has now risen to £8.5 million. This means that for every doctor £112 per year was being spent to persuade him to prescribe certain medicines, and obviously the consumer pays in the end. Some hon. Members recently visited a drug firm which had 70 representatives costing a total of approximately £140,000 while a five-year research budget was £60,000 excluding the pay of researchers.

I am extremely sorry that I have not time to speak at length about hearing aids. As hon. Members will have observed, I wear a hearing aid. I would have liked to have gone into this matter, which is the biggest racket in the country. In 1947, 1,750,000 people needed hearing aids. We have not had a census since so that we do not now know what the score is, but it is clear from what hon. Members have told me privately that many of them have hearing difficulties and consumer protection is urgently needed for them, too if they seek a remedy.

The worst case is the door-to-door salesman who demonstrates to a deaf person a hearing aid and says to him, "Can you hear the clock ticking?" The person answers "Yes", and he is so pleased that he purchases for a large sum of money a hearing aid when, perhaps, an operation which is effective for some forms of conductive deafness would have been much better and would have been worth while for the patient.

I have always had the vague dream that one day, as an hon. Member, I shall get into a debate not feeling that time is pressing on my shoulders, and be able to spread myself for an hour or an hour and a quarter. I had hoped for that on this occasion, but, unfortunately, that cannot happen as many of my hon. Friends want to get in, so I must cut out half of what I wanted to say. Unless we give a higher priority to the whole question of consumer protection, the job of the Commission on prices and incomes will be worthless and useless. This is a task which should be right in the forefront of all the political action that we are taking, because if we are not effective here a lot of other things that we hope to achieve during the next three or four years of this Labour Government will be ineffectual.