HC Deb 08 May 1968 vol 764 cc531-44
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke

I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 24, line 40, leave out 'six' and insert 'eighteen'.

If I move this Amendment shortly it is not because I attach little importance to it—I attach great importance to it—but simply because we have kept the Scots out of their time for longer than they expected, and it would be dangerous to keep them out much longer.

The purpose of the Amendment is to extend the time from six to 18 months before the Bill comes into force. The reason is that there is, and will be, in the pipeline at the time that the Bill comes into force a great deal of packaging material and other matters that can be held to apply trade descriptions to goods, and it will take longer than six months for them to work through.

I hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) mumbling and muttering. His speech in Committee has received a great deal of criticism from the trade, because he pretended that it was possible and, indeed, the normal thing for the pipeline to empty itself within six months. By the "pipeline" I do not mean merely the process from the time that the packaging material—the wrappers, advertisements and labels—comes from the printers and gets to the manufacturers, which is what the right hon. Gentleman was dealing with, but all the points from the moment of the ordering of the packaging, the labelling, and so on, up to the point of sale, which may be in the village shop, which is a small and slow-moving affair and which hitherto was entitled to sell these things but which the Bill, by the will of this and another place, will make dangerous and illegal. It is wrong, in our view, that such village shops and other trade outlets should be landed with goods which, as a result of this legislation, are not disposable. There are many other examples, but I have taken the common one.

It is idle for the ex-Minister of State, as we so sadly have to call him now—not the late Minister of State as sometimes such people are described—to say that six months is time enough. We are persuaded—and the hon. Lady will know where our persuasion comes from—that over many years the experience of a great many manufacturers is that 10 per cent. of any promotional pack is likely to be found in some shops well over six months after the date at which it was sold to the shops.

It is apparent that it will barely be possible, within the six months period from the time when the final form of the legislation is settled, not merely to get these goods off the retailers' shelves, but to deliver to the trade promotional packs which have been revised to conform to the new legislation. Moreover, it will be impossible to ensure that no offending promotional packs are available in retail outlets after the six months period has elapsed. This only affects trade descriptions which are not at present an offence. Most of the things about which we think as being offending trade descriptions are, and will continue to be, offences under the Merchandise Marks Acts.

For the first time, substantially, price comparisons come within the offending area and until today—this will probably be so until Clause 11 is considered by another place—we did not know the provisions i1 this regard, so it is not right to say, as the ex-Minister of State said in Committee, that everyone has known about the Bill for a long time and should have got his facts right by now. It could be arguable that, almost until the Royal Assent, the final facts on Clause 11 will not be known and hints and more than hints have been held out that it would be considerably modified.

It cannot be said in this case that the very introduction of a Bill should have put people on notice to take steps themselves, so we are dealing only with the situation as it is. It is putting an unnecessary burden on industry—I do not know why the Board of Trade insists on this—to make them get all the old and possibly offending material out of the way within six months.

Things like false claims of quality or of provenance, whatever that may be, are already offences, so it is not true that rogues would have a free holiday of 18 months or so. They can be prosecuted now, not only under the Merchandise Marks Acts, but under the Weights and Measures Acts and other Acts relating to food and drugs. We are dealing only with a relatively narrow range of new offences, for which, since they are new, 18 months is not too long and in some cases is not long enough for business to put its house in order.

We could get no budging from the position by the Board of Trade in committee. They have since then had considerable representation from responsible manufacturers and traders. We have had very little concession today on any of our points. Many people attach great importance to this, and it would mean a great sense of relief to the trade if this point could be met. If the hon. Lady insists on digging in her elegant toes again, it will cause an unnecessary exacerbation of the lack of confidence between industry and the Government. I hope that she will not run that unnecessary risk.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Crouch

This is a most important requirement which we ask of the House and the hon. Lady. This is a good Bill, although it could be better. It has open ends and relies a good deal on the sound judgment of the Minister responsible. There has been some tidying up in the last few weeks, for which we are grateful, but my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) referred to one fact which would make the Bill immediately acceptable to industry. The Bill is a step forward in consumer protection and better manufacturing and marketing approach to the consumer, but it requires industry to adjust itself in some sectors. Only a small sector will have to put its house in order, since most of industry, being responsible, knew the Merchandise Marks Acts.

Speaking with some experience of the pipeline in this respect, I know that packaged goods often carry important statements to the consumer about the manufacturers' claims or a possible price reduction. Those goods are in the pipeline now and may not appear for sale for at least six months and, more likely, 12 or 18 months. We ask the hon. Lady to treat this as a responsible suggestion for 18 months. This would give industry a chance to accept this responsible Bill and adjust itself so that it can make it work to serve the consumer and the distributing industries.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York)

I strongly support the Bill and supported it long before it was even a gleam in the eye of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling). I have for many years supported the extension of the Merchandise Marks Acts to advertising. The Government should think again about the transition period which they are allowing industry. Six months is too short. In my constituency there are three major confectionery firms which together take most of the confectionery sales in this country. The largest of the three is a nationally known firm. It has substantial advertising interests. Indeed, in terms of advertising time on television, it is probably the biggest contributor of the confectionery interests. It is salutary to hear the company's observations on the Clause, and——

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are not debating the Clause but whether the period should be six or 18 months.

Mr. Lyon

With respect, Mr. Speaker, the Clause is really concerned only with the period of time and the Amendment is designed to change that period. I am addressing my remarks to that point.

This firm has its forward print of packaging material for about four months in advanced of the time when it wishes to issue the goods. In addition, there is often a period of three months during which the goods, having been packed, are kept in storage by the firm. This means that, overall, there is, even on standard goods and packaging, an average of seven months between the original forward print and the period of issue.

In addition, there is a period during which the retailer will have the goods in stock before they are sold to the consumer. The firm estimates that, on average, this period is about two months, which means that the seven months becomes nine. This means that, even on standard goods sold in normal packaging, there is a period of more than nine months in the whole process. As I say, this is an average time and it could be longer. This difficulty is accelerated when one considers special promotional periods or lines. For example, the Easter trade for next year has already been planned and the firm is in process of printing material. This, therefore, might be caught by the Bill. It follows that if even longer periods of planning, for more special promotional boosts—gifts with items of produce involved—are involved, there may be even longer periods.

In terms of advertising films, which are now costing about £10,000 apiece, there is normally a life expectancy of about 12 months. If any of the material in a film offends against the extended cover of the Bill, that film would have to be discontinued and the firm would suffer a substantial loss.

It is clear that when. in Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough said that he had made diligent enquiries about the matter and had found that it was rubbish to consider that any firm would hold pack- aging material for more than six months, he was looking at only a part of the picture. My right hon. Friend said, as the other part of his argument, that in any case an Amendment similar to this which we moved in Committee was not required because honest traders would already be observing the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act; and he did not conceive of any case—indeed, he thought it impossible—when they would be caught by the misdescription Clauses of the Bill.

My right hon. Friend was underestimating the extent to which the Bill has widened the Merchandise Marks Act. It is one of the claims of the Government that they have considerably extended the cover of the legislation. They have extended it to advertising and, while I strongly support this, we must consider that we will be catching a lot of promotional material for goods which were never caught by the original Act.

Because the range is so much wider, even honest traders who at present may not be offending in terms of misdescribing will be offending when the Bill is in operation. I regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough used the word "honest" because it is clear that an honest trader may be in breach of the Bill because there is no provision in it which says that a man must do something dishonestly. A man can be caught for a criminal offence if he is unintelligent——

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member is drifting into other parts of the Measure. We are considering whether the period should be six or 18 months.

Mr. Lyon

I was dealing with the arguments adduced by the then Minister of State at the Board of Trade in support of the Clause as drafted and against a similar Amendment which was moved in Committee. I want to deal with the arguments because I am sure they will be repeated when my hon. Friend replies to this debate.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am not concerned with the argument in Committee. The hon. Member must address himself to the argument about whether the period should be six months or 18 months.

Mr. Lyon

I hope that is what I am doing. I take the point that the Government are now anxious that the extended provisions of this Bill should come into force as quickly as possible. I am glad that they have had a change of heart. I remember when this Bill was the Consumer Protection Bill. I remember when it was introduced in the last Parliament before the last election. It was dropped in the first Session of this Parliament and it has reappeared only in the second.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member's reminiscences are interesting, but he must come to the Amendment.

Mr. Lyon

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the arguments I have so far deployed are also pertinent to this Amendment, because this is the argument of the Government for saying that this Bill should come into force six months after the Royal Assent. I am arguing that if the Government were prepared to delay for two years before they introduced the Bill, they can wait for another 12 months before the Act comes into force.

I think there is considerable force in the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) that even in that extended period it is not to be supposed that consumers will be the prey of reckless, negligent, or even dishonest traders because there already is the protection of the existing Merchandise Marks Acts. In that period the consumer will not be much less protected than he will be under the provisions of this Bill.

Even in that period it is unlikely that there will be many prosecutions under the extended provisions of this Measure. It is a noticeable feature of the original Merchandise Marks Act that they have not been a very great protection to the consumer. Much greater protection is given by the threat of civil proceedings as a result of misrepresentation. It is much more likely that a misrepresentation Act with extended provisions would be a greater protection for the consumer than an Act making criminal offences could be.

I do not think the Government are on strong ground in arguing that by this Bill we have such a substantial change in the protection given to consumers that we must have it in six months rather than 18 months. From the evidence I have had from firms in my constituency, I am convinced that it would be desirable in justice to them and to many firms throughout the country that we should give industry 18 months in which to acclimatise itself to the provisions of this Bill.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Arnold Gregory (Stockport, North)

On the question of industry meeting the requirements of the Bill, I think it would be far more difficult to explain to the country precisely why we are debating a Bill about consumer protection and trade descriptions and at the tail end we argue for an 18 months' suspension for industry to put its house in order. The psychological effect of doing that would be absolutely confounding. We would have the dickens of a job to explain to the public precisely what we were doing.

That industry wishes to provide good products but is halted in presenting them to the public by virtue of the difficulty of meeting the requirements of packaging and printing, the public would not believe. The great proportion of packaging and descriptions have met existing legislation, and will meet the new legislation. I do not think that there is a good reason for suspending the operation of the Act for 18 months.

There will be a tremendous amount of printing material in the pipeline, but I hope that my hon. Friend will not accede to this proposal. I have made inquiries in the textile industry, and I am convinced that it can meet the requirements of the Bill in six months, because it has met the requirements of existing legislation and is not spoofing the public. It will attune itself to the new situation under the Bill as it stands within the six months' period.

Mr. Goodhart

I am normally entirely convinced by the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), who has led us through the Committee and Report stages of the Bill with immense erudition and common sense. I am sorry to part company with him at, as it were, the final whistle. But if the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) is coming over to us it would seem only fair that perhaps I should go over to the other side.

Although I voted for the Amendment in Committee, I have since re-read the speech of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), the final contentious speech he made as a Minister, and I am now convinced that he is right, for reasons that are not particularly creditable to the Government, because the argument that carries weight with me is that the Bill has been around for a very long time. A great deal was discussed with industry before the 1964 General Election and, apart from Clause 11, the Bill's contents have been public knowledge for two years. I find it difficult to believe that nagging uncertainty about Clause 11 will affect many manufacturers and packers. Therefore, I can see no reason why the Bill's introduction should be further delayed.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody

I have listened carefully to the arguments which have been put forward for delaying the coming into force of the Bill for 18 months after it is passed instead of for six as the Clause provides. But I remain wholly unconvinced that they add up to a sufficient case to justify such a delay.

I do not want to dispute about how much time manufacturers might need to change their labelling or packaging if they found that a description now lawfully in use would be a false trade description under the Bill. I am quite ready to accept that there could be circumstances in which, if this happened, a manufacturer would need something over six months to get new packs on to the market, but we have no reason to suppose that such problems will arise in practice.

When we consider the sort of descriptions used on pre-packed goods we realise that—in so far as they are factual descriptions and not of the "Woz washes whiter" variety—they relate to matters which, if misdescribed, would be false trade descriptions under the present law. Such things as composition, method of manufacture, name of manufacturer, origin, measurement, fitness for purpose and performance are all covered by the Merchandise Marks Acts; while the misdescription provisions of the Food and Drugs Acts are of a quite general nature.

The extensions made by the Bill to the meaning of trade description mostly concern matters which are unlikely to figure on mass-produced pre-packed goods. I am not saying that there may not be some such goods bearing a description which is now lawful but would be caught by one of the new provisions of Clause 2(1). But I do say that such cases are likely to be rare; and the chances of one occurring in combination with circumstances requiring as much as six months for a change of pack seem extremely remote. We certainly have no evidence that it is anything more than a theoretical possibility.

It has also been argued that more time is needed to ensure that any misdescribed goods already in the distributive pipeline will be cleared from retailers' stock before the Bill comes into force. But this is something which could not be ensured by a delay of even longer than 18 months. Where stock control is imperfect some goods may stay in wholesalers' and retailers' stocks for very long periods. It is not unknown for something to be sold over the counter years after it left the factory. Moreover, unscrupulous and careless suppliers, at whom the Bill is aimed, may be distributing misdescribed goods to retailers right up to the time that it comes into effect whenever that may be.

We do not accept, however, that there are likely to be extensive difficulties at the retail stage, any more than in manufacturing. The vast majority of goods on the market are correctly labelled—if they are labelled at all—and will not be affected by the Bill; and if a retailer does have some wrongly labelled goods in his stock on the operative date he will, if he did not or could not have known that the labels were wrong, be adequately protected by the defences in Clause 23. Of course, if he knew or ought to have known of the misdescription, it would be up to him to remove the labels or otherwise correct it.

There is no parallel with the Weights & Measures Act and Regulations or with the labelling regulations made under the Food & Drugs Act. Those measures introduced positive requirements for labelling goods, which manufacturers as a whole were not already meeting, either in response to previous legislation or as a matter of normal commercial practice. Under the Bill, positive requirements to mark goods with prescribed information could be imposed only by subordinate legislation. In such cases the date of operation would be stated in the individual order. The time allowed would be adapted to the circumstances of the trades concerned and would be determined after the consultations required under Clause 37.

We have given careful thought to all the representations which have been made to us on this matter, but we are not convinced that the various contingencies which are seen as theoretical possibilities are likely to give rise to real difficulties in practice. We are strengthened in this opinion by the experience of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1953. That Act extended the meaning of the term "trade description" to include fitness for purpose, strength, performance or behaviour: matters which are considerably more relevant to the marking of prepacked goods than the additions made by the present Bill. It also, for the first time, specifically made misleading trade descriptions an offence, as well as false ones. These new provisions came into

force six months after the Act was passed; and we are not aware that any serious problems occurred as a result.

To go beyond six months would, in short, be justified only by theoretical argument, and there would be a heavy price to pay. We are seeking in this Bill to provide an important new measure of protection for consumers. It would clearly be against the interests of consumers, and also of honest traders, to defer for longer than is really necessary the additional protection which is required in the fields of, for example, advertisements at large, oral misdescription and misdescription of services, or the enabling powers to make labelling orders, and so on.

All in all, we believe that six months is a reasonable time to allow and I hope, therefore, that the House will agree that the amendment should not be accepted.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 175.

Division No. 136.] AYES [9.38 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Page, Graham (Crosby)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Harvie Anderson, Miss Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Astor, John Hawkins, Paul Percival, Ian
Awdry, Daniel Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Peyton, John
Baker, Kenneth (Acton) Higgins, Terence L. Pike, Miss Mervyn
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Hiley, Joseph Pink, R. Bonner
Berry, Hn. Anthony Hill, J. E. B. Pounder, Rafton
Biffen, John Hirst, Geoffrey Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Black, Sir Cyril Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin Prior, J. M. L.
Boardman, Tom Holland, Philip Pym, Francis
Bossom, Sir Clive Hordern, Peter Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Brinton, Sir Tratton Hornby, Richard Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Hunt, John Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Hutchison, Michael Clark Royle, Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M) Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Sharples, Richard
Burden, F. A. King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Campbell, Gordon Kitson, Timothy Silvester, Frederick
Cary, Sir Robert Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Chichester-Clark, R. Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Stainton, Keith
Clegg, Walter Loveys, W. H. Stodart, Anthony
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Lyon, Alexander W. (York') Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Crouch, David MacArthur, Ian Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Dance, James Maddan, Martin Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Maginnis, John E. Temple, John M.
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) Maude, Angus Tilney, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Eden, Sir John Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. van Straubenzee, W. R.
Eyre, Reginald Mills, Peter (Torrington) Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Farr, John Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Ward, Dame Irene
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Miscampbell, Norman Weatherill, Bernard
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Webster, David
Gibson-Watt, David Monro, Hector Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Glover, Sir Douglas More, Jasper Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Goodhew, Victor Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Gower, Raymond Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Grant, Anthony Murton, Oscar Wright, Esmond
Grant-Ferris, R. Nabarro, Sir Gerald Wylie, N. R.
Gurden, Harold Neave, Airey Younger, Hn. George
Hall, John (Wycombe) Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Osborn, John (Hallam) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Mr. R. W. Elliott and
Mr. Humphrey Atkins.
NOES
Allen, Scholefield Gregory, Arnold Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Anderson, Donald Grey, Charles (Durham) Moyle, Roland
Archer, Peter Hamling, William Neal, Harold
Armstrong, Ernest Hannan, William Newens, Stan
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Haseldine, Norman Norwood, Christopher
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Hattersley, Roy Oakes, Gordon
Barnett, Joel Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Ogden, Eric
Baxter, William Hooson, Emlyn O'Malley, Brian
Bessell, Peter Horner, John Orbach, Maurice
Binns, John Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Orme, Stanley
Bishop, E. S. Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) Oswald, Thomas
Blackburn, F. Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Palmer, Arthur
Booth, Albert Hoy, James Park, Trevor
Boyden, James Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) Parker, John (Dagenham)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Bradley, Tom Hughes, Roy (Newport) Pavitt, Laurence
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hunter, Adam Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper) Hynd, John Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Janner, Sir Barnett Pentland, Norman
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Buchan, Norman Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Carmichael, Neil Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Price, William (Rugby)
Coe, Denis Judd, Frank Probert, Arthur
Concannon, J. D. Kelley, Richard Richard, Ivor
Cronin, John Kenyon, Clifford Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Kerr, Russell (Feltham) Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Dalyell, Tam Leadbitter, Ted Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Darling, Rt. Hn. George Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Sheldon, Robert
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Lomas, Kenneth Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Loughlin, Charles Slater, Joseph
Dewar, Donald Lubbock, Eric Small, William
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Dickens, James Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Stonehouse, John
Dobson, Ray McBride, Neil Swingler, Stephen
Doig, Peter MacColl, James Taverne, Dick
Dunnett, Jack MacDermot, Niall Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Macdonald, A. H. Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) McKay, Mrs. Margaret Thornton, Ernest
Eadie, Alex Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty) Varley, Eric G.
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien) Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Ellis, John Mackintosh, John P. Walden, Brian (All Saints)
English, Michael Maclennan, Robert Watkins, David (Consett)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Fernyhough, E. MacPherson, Malcolm Wellbeloved, James
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Wilkins, W. A.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Manuel, Archie Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Mapp, Charles Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Forrester, John Marquand, David Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Freeson, Reginald Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Gardner, Tony Mendelson, J. J. Woof, Robert
Garrett, W. E. Millan, Bruce
Goodhart, Philip Milne, Edward (Blyth) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Mr. Harry Gourlay and
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony Mr. Joseph Harper.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.