OFFENCES AGAINST THE SAFETY REGULATIONS (Hansard, 14 July 1978)

§ Mr. Trotter
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The purpose of this amendment is to remove the reference to "inappropriate information" which was criticised on Report in the Commons on the ground of its vagueness. An undertaking was given by the Minister of State after criticism about the reference to "inappropriate information" on the ground that the term was vague in the context of an offence. The Minister undertook to consider whether the term should be defined.
The term did not lend itself to definition. The need for a definition was avoided by redrafting the provision along the lines of this amendment. The information which is prohibited in relation to goods will be spelt out in regulations containing provisions of the type referred to in clause 2(3). The amendment makes that clear and deletes the reference to "inappropriate information". The amendment complies with the undertaking given by the Minister. I trust that it will satisfy those who criticised the clause.

§ Mr. David Hunt (Wirral)
I wish to express a strong reservation about the way in which the amendment leaves important decisions to secondary legislation. We have dealt with a number of legislative measures which involve consumer safety. I wonder whether we have been sufficiently cautious in dealing with such measures and in considering the way in which they will affect the business world and the world in which the consumer lives.
Perhaps the most important of such legislation is the Unfair Contract Terms Act, which highlights the considerable difficulties involved in dealing with legislation of this nature without the fullest consultation taking place. That Act is now seen to have ramifications which are far beyond those which were anticipated for it.
Lord Denning has indicated that there will be a considerable increase in the number of cases which come before the courts as a result of that Act. That legislation refers to all business dealings. It means that no parties—in some cases strong parties such as multinational companies—can enter into contractual relations in the secure knowledge that they will be termed as being reasonable in the light of what was in the minds of the parties at the time. That experience is important to this Bill, which extends consumer safety further.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) on having introduced legislation in an area about which there is deep concern. I am, however, worried about whether, in seeking and discovering that there is no correct definition and that the matter has, therefore, to be subject to regulations, my hon. Friend has too easily pushed into the world of secondary legislation. I have spoken about this matter before and I have criticised it.
I am a practising solicitor. I believe that we leave too much to statutory instruments, either because of time or because of an inability to draft correctly. We enact too much legislation on a secondary basis much later than we enact the primary legislation. The greatest misgiving that I have had since I came to the House a comparatively short time ago is that we have considered statutory instruments in a neutered fashion in Committee, usually 1977 after the statutory instrument has come into effect. We have considered them too late to effect any material alteration. We should ensure that we pass legislation in as clear and as precise a manner as possible.
There are a large number of Bills before us today. Indeed, those who believe that all Governments should take the pledge and enact only a little legislation would be horrified to see the list. Some people would treat it as a joke. I do not. I find it horrifying that we can still keep churning out as much legislation as this, often leaving important matters to secondary legislation and regulations which the Minister may or may not make later.

§ Mr. Richard Body (Holland with Boston)
In his experience as a practising solicitor, does my hon. Friend find that the difficulties are increasing for small business men?

§ Mr. Hunt
I am obliged to my hon. Friend, because that is what prompts me to leap to my feet today and give my opinions. Life has become too complicated and the law too complex. I should prefer to see a world in which instead of leaving matters to secondary legislation, the law is codified. I should like us to enact legislation which spells out clearly exactly what it needs and where it slots into other legislation, without constant references to regulations which are not known. One does not know to what extent they will cover existing situations and to what extent they will be able to cover situations that arise in the future of which we now know nothing.
2.0 p.m.
The only reason for the amendment is that no one could find clear enough words to avoid it. I make a plea that, instead of always reverting to secondary legislation when we cannot find the necessary and relevant words, we should not bother, bccause we are making life far too complex.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) asked me whether, as a practising solicitor I thought that the world was becoming simpler and life easier. Far from it. I was discussing this matter with the Law Society only this week. The poor individual now has very little chance of getting legal aid 1978 in order to get advice from a solicitor. When legal aid was introduced in 1949, just under 80 per cent. of the population were entitled to it. Today, that figure is 23 per cent. That means that very few people can go along to a solicitor and seek an explanation.
Let us consider the effect of secondary legislation. When the individual has saved enough money to embark upon a legal case—he might be a landlord wishing to let off part of his premises—he goes to a solicitor, who has to have on his desk perhaps 15 different books which, because of resolutions and regulations, cross-reference each other in a way that makes his position very difficult and the whole exercise much more expensive.
My major plea is that we should move away from the constant urge on the Government side to handle these matters by regulation. Let us have instead simple, easy legislation, and let us start moving towards the situation where an ordinary member of the public can go into a public library, look up the law and know exactly what the position is. We have now reached the stage where not only are we governed by the stare decisis, where we have to look up the ratio decidendi of every judge in every case in order to see whether the facts in a case fit the facts in the case in point.
In addition we have to go through the case law and the statute law which we churn out in sufficient quantity to fill one or two volumes every year. On top of that, last year there were more than 2,000 statutory instruments which had to be cross-referenced back to the relevant Act to determine exactly what was being provided, and quite often the Acts themselves are cross-referenced back to other Acts which have to be looked up.
What sort of a situation are we embarking upon for the consumer with this amendment? It might be a good idea to put in some limiting words to the effect that there could be only so many regulations and amending regulations. We have to control the vomiting of secondary legislation which spouts forth, although it comes not from the Minister, because he has tried hard to simplify the law by introducing other Bills and methods of legislating further, but, unfortunately, they have led instead to further complication.

§ The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser)
When we last discussed safety regulations in Committee upstairs I, as the Minister, and the Government were strongly criticised by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) for not making a sufficient number of such regulations. The hon. Gentleman should know that there are differences of opinion on this matter even within his own party.

§ Mr. Hunt
That is precisely the sort of intervention that no member of the public could ever understand. How on earth could this issue be a party issue? Unfortunately, there are those in politics today who see any issue as having two sides, with one party on each side. It is this very nature of confrontation politics that does so much damage to our image outside. I do not want to move on to the broadcasting of Parliament—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I see only one side, and that is that the hon. Gentleman had now better come to the amendment.

§ Mr. Hunt
Will you tell me, Mr. Speaker, to which one you are directing me to address my remarks?

§ Mr. Speaker
We are discussing Lords amendment no. 6, but the hon. Gentleman was discussing confrontation in politics. That has nothing to do with the amendment.

§ Mr. Hunt
I thought that we were dealing with Lords amendment no. 4.

§ Mr. Speaker
I had been uneasy for some time about the hon. Gentleman's speech We passed Lords amendment no. 4 some time ago.

§ Mr. Hunt
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the list before me is complicated and it shows five different groups of amendments that you were to call. I see now that I was discussing the amendment which I had intended to discuss.

§ Mr. Body
My hon. Friend is perfectly in order.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I shall decide that, thank you. If I need help I shall come to Norfolk—or is it Suffolk?

§ Mr. Hunt
I was dealing with the question of certainty in legislation. I came to talk about confrontation in politics 1980 only because the Minister intervened, and you did not rule his intervention out of order, Mr. Speaker.
Perhaps I may deal with the Minister's point, which was that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) said in Committee upstairs that more safety regulations should be made. She is absolutely right. There are many areas where regulations need to be made. Is that not, however, a reflection upon our actions in passing primary legislation which fails to provide sufficiently at the start of the legislative process for safety regulations?
I am appealing for simpler and clearer legislation, and although I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Mr. Trotter) on having introduced this excellent Bill, I am a little worried that certain aspects of it will cause increasing complication in the legislative process.

§ Mr. Speaker
I was very tolerant indeed with the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt), because he really raised a Second Reading debate point, not one directed to the amendment. I rise only to make clear that I was right last time.

§ Mr. Body
I congratulate my hon. Friend for having taken this Bill so far. If, in the course of my comments on the amendment or subsequently, I make any criticism it is not of the principle of the Bill or of what it seeks to do. I gather that the Minister of State has had some hand in the Bill, and I say "Three cheers" for all that his Department has done to promote it.
The fact that the Lords amendment is necessary illustrates how woefully the Bill has been drafted. The amendment requires an insertion to be made in clause 2. I do not understand the part to be added, and I should be grateful if the Minister of State or my hon. Friend would explain it further. The words to be included are: by means of a mark or otherwise, of information of a particular kind in connection with goods". I understand the word "mark". What I do not understand is the addition of the words "or otherwise". I cannot understand how that phrase could be inserted to make any sense. I hope that 1981 I have understood it correctly. I understand that we shall be having regulations drafted by the Department, and in due course published, which will add to the Bill certain requirements of law, and we have a requirement implied by "a mark". Could it be made plain to us at some stage how the phrase "or otherwise" can be necessary?
I put this point because I want to support as wholeheartedly as I can everything that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt). He has made a plead for simpler and clearer regulations. They cannot be so if we permit the officials in the Minister of State's Department to produce regulations that would be permitted by the use of the phrase "or otherwise". If it is to be a mark, that is something that we can understand. That is clear and definable. A mark is a mark. But when one adds the phrase "or otherwise", one makes it almost incomprehensible.
That leads me to wonder, having spent some time in studying the Bill, albeit only a little time, how it came to be drafted in the way that it has been. We ought to object to it. All of us who have read the Bill, and particularly the cause that we are now in the process of amending, ought to register our objection to the fact that this kind of legislation has been drafted in the way that it has been.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) was responsible for drafting the clause. I suspect that he could not have been responsible for it. If he had been, he would have drafted it in much plainer English than the form in which it has reached the House.
One knows that my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral is a practising solicitor. Indeed, to my certain knowledge the Minister of State was once a practising solicitor. I should have thought that the Minister would have some sympathy for the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend a few moment ago. From practising in the area in which he did, the Minister must know of the great difficulty that all people have, particularly the kind of people who are concerned with this subject, in understanding the law when regulations are churned out in the way in which the Bill envisages.

§ Mr. Trotter
I may be able to satisfy my hon. Friend on the point about a mark. Having read the detailed wording again, I can understand the problem that my hon. Friend sees. It is really the other way around. The mark has been added to the information, because the problem may well be that information given in the normal way is misleading. I am sure that we can all understand that. In addition, it could be possible for a trader to use an official mark in a misleading way. One of the official signs that are recognised in trade as having an official significance could be used in a misleading way. I hope that that explains the point to my hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Body
With respect to my hon. Friend, it does not quite do so. It would still be a mark. I do not want to labour the point or to repeat myself and to stray out of order, but I should have thought that a mark was a mark, and that is what we know. I still do not understand the insertion of the extra two words "or otherwise".

§ Mr. Trotter
Really, the "otherwise" will be the normal, and the mark will be the abnormal. I hope that that makes the matter a little clearer.

§ Mr. Body
Mercifully, I am not a practising solicitor. Nor am I a shopkeeper.

§ Mr. Ian Gow (Eastbourne)
Perhaps I may point out to my hon. Friend, who is a keen student of these matters, that the offending words "or otherwise" appeared both in the Bill as drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Mr. Trotter) and in the amendment that has been passed in another place. Therefore, my hon. Friend's criticism of the words "or otherwise" is a criticism of both my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth and their Lordships.

§ Mr. Body
I am sure that that criticism would be a fair one if it were true that my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth had drafted the Bill. As I say, I cannot believe that he was guilty of doing any such thing. He has handled the Bill throughout its progress and we are all convinced that it will be on the statute book, and the sooner it is, the better.
1983 2.15 p.m.
None the less, I must support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral. The Bill contains very sloppy drafting. This is objectionable for many reasons. It should have been quite unnecessary for the other place to produce all these amendments. We have 37 amendments to consider. That is a large number for a Bill which is not controversial and which has the support, as I understand it, of the whole House and of the other place. The Bill should never have been put to us drafted in its present form and requiring so many amendments by the other place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral made a plea for the codification of the law. That is relevant in relation to this amendment, because the criticism that I make about this amendment can be made about some of the others, namely that consumer law should manifestly be plain and simple. One of my chores in this House is to sit on the Select Committee that deals with the consolidation of law. Every Wednesday we consider a number of Acts being fused into one measure. There is no doubt in my mind that the Acts passed by this House in days gone by are much plainer and better drafted than those that we are now putting before the public.
This is a matter of importance. We must not have deteriorating standards and sloppy drafting. That is particularly so in matters of this kind, which are so important for the public, for practising solicitors, for shopkeepers, for chambers of trade, for accountants and for all those who have to read this legislation, understand it, and give an interpretation of it speedily, either for themselves or for their clients. If this House is to have its work respected, it is vital that the legislation that we pass be written in plain terms, of the standard that we had some years ago.
Having had the other chore of being a member of the Select Committee that considers statutory instruments, I think that the figure that has been mentioned was wrong. I think that it is about 3,000. It is a great number. This is secondary legislation. We should not have anything like this number. We shall now have to have more regulations which should never have been necessary.
1984 The Bill and this clause should have been so drafted that there should be no necessity for further secondary legislation to be concocted by the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection and published in due course without anyone on the Floor of this Chamber being able to criticise its contents or to complain, as I am complaining—and I believe that others share my view—about how badly this is working.
I make this protest, and I am delighted that someone who is a practising solicitor has been able to make the point that he has made. I have never had the advantage of being a practising solicitor. I practised on the other side, and I know only too well how overworked solicitors are at present. They do not want the task of having not only to look at the main statute to see what the law is there but to delve into regulations.
We do not know what the regulations will look like. We are in the hands of the Minister of State. We know that he has been a practising solicitor and, no doubt, he will do his job well, ensuring that his officials produce something that is clear. We hope so. We cannot be sure.
This is a matter of great concern, about which I make my protest. I hope that I have been in order in doing so and I hope that the lesson will be learnt before too many injustices are done to individuals, not only those who have to advise and interpret the law but those who may suffer penalties if they do not conform to the law. Invariably such people wish to conform. I cannot believe that there is a trader or business man who is not conscious of the requirements of consumer safety and who does not wish to act within the law and minimise the risks. This Bill began with an enormous amount of good will. It is sad that any part of that good will should be sullied by the drafting of the Bill. I entirely acquit my hon. Friend of any responsibility for the necessity for these 37 Lords amendments.

§ Mr. John Fraser
The words which have been placed in the Bill and which are the subject of this Lords amendment were placed there as a result of an undertaking given to the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) on Report. I hope that the House will not quarrel with the sponsor of the Bill for having met wholly 1985 and completely the objections raised by the Opposition Front Bench on something which, I agree, is not a party matter.
To get this into context, I should explain that clause 1 is the regulation-making part of the Bill while clause 2 creates the substantive offences. As a result of discussions in Committee, it was thought desirable that the nature of substantial offences should be spelt out in the Bill and not in regulations. The words we are discussing are part of the cross-reference in the offences provisions in clause 2 to the regulation-making power in clause 1. They are a shorthand reference to the type of regulations that could be made.
Three other points have been raised. The first is that the law ought to be simple and, as far as possible, codified. I agree completely. In so far as we can have simple and codified regulations and not those which contain a mass of amendments, that is desirable not only for solicitors but for the general public. The second point made by the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) is that it should not be necessary to legislate by way of statutory instrument. In Committee and on Report it was accepted by the sponsor, and I support him in this, that regulations of this nature should be subject to a detailed consultation procedure with industry and, secondly, to the affirmative resolution procedure of the House. There is no question of any regulation coming into force unless it has been preceded by consultation and sanctioned by affirmative resolution. There is no question of annulment proceedings for substantive regulations made under this measure.
The alternative to having regulations is to place a general duty of care on all manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers not to do anything which is dangerous or which could cause the possibility of physical harm to a member of the public. If we placed that general duty of care in a statute, it would be simple but it would not be certain. There would be a simple duty, and if that were breached there would be a criminal offence. The reaction of industry would be to say "We do not know where we stand".

§ Mr. David Hunt
May I put a further possibility to the Minister? It is that in the 1986 Bill there should be set out clearly all the law relating to this subject, including that which will be contained in regulations. I do not for a moment accept the Minister's argument that the regulations have to be dealt with at a later stage. Why cannot they be comprehensively included? As a result of the average 6 per cent. swing in the by-elections last night, the Minister will soon be returning to work as a practising solicitor. As such, he will find that one of the greatest difficulties with legislation of this kind is the necessity constantly to refer to additional documentation in addition to the primary Act which it is sought to interpret.

§ Mr. Fraser
That is as may be. I am making the point that if we tried to put a general duty into the Bill it would be too vague and not sufficiently pointed.
The third reason for having regulatory powers, not only in this legislation but in much other legislation, is that the world is changing rapidly, particularly with respect to consumer products and technical advance. It is important that we deal with an area product by product, looking at the danger that may occur for the consumer, and have a clear, certain set of regulations which prescribe safety characteristics and requirements, this process being done after consultation and, as a result of this Bill, largely by reference to British standards.
This is the serious point. The hon. Gentleman can utter high-flown phrases about the simplicity of the law. What I ask him to do is to put himself in my shoes—with a 6 per cent. swing I know that that is what he wants to do—and consider some of the cases which would come to his attention. There are cases when a child has died horribly as a result of eating a cosmetic. There are other cases when a whole family has been horribly maimed or burned to death as a result of the inadequate construction of an oil stove. There are other cases when a child has choked to death in its cot because the synthetic materials used in children's shawls tend to tighten rather than to stretch as the child twists in his cot. There are cases of young babies swallowing dummies and choking to death. There are instances of prams which career down the pavement and run in front of a heavy vehicle, with the result that the child is killed.
1987 We face a changing technology in consumer goods. It is necessary to have the power to be flexible, to do things after consultation and, as far as possible, by reference to standards. The choice between generalised legislation, which the hon. Member for Wirral wants, and specific regulation-making powers is not one of principle. What is at issue is the ability to save people—often young people or those over the age of 65—from death or injury, sometimes in the most horrible circumstances. I assure the hon. Member, after some years of experience, that the degree of flexibility is essential because the health of the citizen is the highest law.

§ Mr. Gow
We have listened to a compelling speech from the Minister of State, to which I shall be returning a little later. I begin by giving a warning to myself. Legion are the virtues of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt), but I remind him, as I remind myself, that he was rebuked by Mr. Speaker for a misunderstanding as to which amendment was under consideration. To put the matter beyond doubt, I wish to make it plain that I am seeking to speak to Lords amendment no. 6 and that I shall be directing my remarks to clause 2(3).
We need to look first at the clause upon which clause 2 is dependent—namely, clause 1. Clause 1 gives to the Secretary of State the power to make safety regulations. Lords amendment no. 6 concerns whether we believe that the other place has improved the language of clause 2(3) or whether we believe that the other place has made the language more difficult to comprehend. That is one of the issues, and it is the issue to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral addressed his remarks.
Frequently we get into trouble in this place because we are members of the legal profession. Today we have heard the Minister of State, himself a solicitor, who was preceded by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), who is a barrister, who was preceded by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, whose predecessor was a distinguished QC. We have had a number of lawyers addressing the House. Indeed, I see that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) is in his place. Mercifully, we hope to have 1988 a contribution from him if he succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Ronald Bell (Beaconsfield)
I do not know what my hon. Friend means by "mercifully" in that context.

§ Mr. Gow
I was merely indicating that it would be a mercy to the House and to the Bill if we were to have a contribution from my hon. and learned Friend.
I do not want to become obsessed with the contributions which have been and which are to be made by the legal fraternity. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral was right to remind us how great is the volume of legislation which pours forth from this Parliament and how important it is that we pass laws which it is easy for the citizen to comprehend.
I declare an interest. In one sense, the greater the complexity of the laws that we pass, the more lucrative is the practice of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, not to mention the practice of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. So it might be said that the lawyers have a common interest. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) beside me. It might be thought that the lawyers have a vested interest in passing the most complex legislation so that the citizens will seek guidance from the lawyers as to the meaning of legislation passed by Parliament.
I do not subcribe to that view. I believe that, on the contrary, we have an overriding duty to pass legislation which can be understood as easily as possible. If we are forced to choose, as apparently we are, between my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) and another place, I find it extremely difficult to decide which is the more incomprehensible of the texts offered to us.
Therefore, if it were in order, I should now be proposing a further amendment to leave out not only the words proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth but also the words suggested by another place. However, I understand that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not accept a manuscript amendment to that effect. So we are not able to read, mark 1989 and learn the gospel according to Eastbourne. We must have the gospel according to Tynemouth or the gospel according to another place.
Therefore, the task which falls upon my hon. Friends and upon the serried ranks on the Government side of the House is a very difficult one, for reasons to which I shall come. I mean no discourtesy either to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth or to another place when I contend that the words in subsection (3) as they stand and the words in subsection (3) as they would be if we were to accept the suggestion of another place are extremely difficult to construe.
Let us see what the difference is. The original words were: of inappropriate information relating to goods either by means of misleading marks or otherwise". It was the last two words, "or otherwise", which sprang to the alert and vigilant mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston. The other place says that it does not like the words of my hon. Friend and wishes to insert the following words: by means of a mark or otherwise, of information of a particular kind in connection with goods". I do not believe that the recommendation of another place would be an improvement to the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth, when he addresses us again, will tell us that he believes that his suggested form of words is superior to that of another place.
I do not think that it would be right for the elected House to assume always —I do not know whether I shall carry my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield with me on this—that there is superior wisdom in another place. I think that my hon. and learned Friend thinks that on most occasions there is superior wisdom in another place, but I do not subscribe to that view. I do not think that the other place is always wiser than we are.
When we are debating these issues, when we are debating the detailed wording of a subsection in a new measure which will grant additional powers to the Secretary of State, we often forget the practicality of how this will work. Who 1990 will make the regulations? What kind of situation are we actually envisaging in the real world outside?
I mean no disrespect to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth or to my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) or to myself when I say that often we fail to understand how laws that we pass in this place will actually work out in the real world. We can pass laws; we can introduce complex provisions. We can find things difficult to understand. Ah, the Lord President of the Council has joined us. He is an expert in these matters. He is in many ways a populist. Indeed, I should like to walk humbly and deferentially and several miles behind him along the populist road. I therefore know that I shall carry him with me in the remarks I am about to make. [HON. MEMBERS:" Where is he?"]
It is one of the strangest ironies that the Labour Party, which claims to be the champion of the consumer and which claims to be the protector of the customer against those who are trying to sell to him, should be represented today by one solitary Member of Parliament—that is, the Minister of State, who is without even his Parliamentary Private Secretary. Perhaps all the others are in Penistone or some other place picking up the pieces.
What I was inviting the House to consider was this. How will the regulations actually work physically? The Minister of State gave us an insight in his—I hope he will allow me to say this; I do not want to damage his future career—excellent speech. His speech was delivered, as his speeches are so often delivered, without a note. I hope that he will not think it presumptuous of me when I say that, and I hope that it will not damage his glittering prospects on this side of the House.
In his illustrations the Minister of State referred to a cot, a pram and a dummy. We are all gravely concerned about accidents. The Minister's examples all concerned deaths which occurred to children. Such examples might not occur if the Bill becomes law. He was therefore extolling the virtues of safety regulations to be made under clause 1(1).
I take a different example. Although, of course, Parliament has a special duty to protect children, I am sure that the 1991 Minister of State would not wish to argue that the Bill is not designed to protect adults as well. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth had in mind the need to protect not only children but adults also. As the Minister dealt with children, it is not inappropriate that I should deal with adults.
I want to deal with the matter in the specific context of subsection (3) of clause 2, the wording of which is: if a person contravenes a provision of safety regulations and so on. These are safety regulations which would have been made by the Secretary of State in accordance with powers conferred upon him by clause 1, and they have to be approved by this House and by another place. Those regulations having been made, if a person contravenes a regulation which prohibits the provision of inappropriate information relating to goods either by means of misleading marks or otherwise", an offence will have been committed.
Let us suppose that razor blades are on sale. Razor blades are not of interest to every adult. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) and, I suppose, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) are not keen users of razor blades. It may be that those of my hon. Friends who are more opulent than I have electric razors, but there are still some of us who use razor blades.

§ Mr. Body
Hear, hear.

§ Mr. Gow
My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston assents to my proposition. But suppose that safety regulations were made governing the packaging or the warning signs which should be put upon razor blades. What is meant in this context by inappropriate information relating to goods either by means of misleading marks or otherwise"? Could it be that there might be in these safety regulations an obligation on the manufacturer of razor blades to give a warning that they were sharp? Would that be something that could arise in this context? Or could it be said that razor blades must not be made too sharp in case, when we are shaving in the morning, we cut ourselves? Would it be misleading if it were not stated on the packet 1992 of razor blades that they were extremely sharp and liable to pierce the skin unless care was taken?
Frankly, I believe that the words in the Bill are better than the words in the amendment suggested by another place. But let us not confine ourselves to razor blades. I suppose that it would be possible to manufacture a toothbrush which, if used without skill, could get stuck in the throat, thereby causing death. If we have these new safety regulations, are we to have the Secretary of State coming to Parliament and saying that a warning must be issued by all manufacturers of toothbrushes that we must not use a toothbrush in such a way that it gets stuck in the throat?
I return to the words inappropriate information relating to goods either by means of misleading marks or otherwise and ask what the words "or otherwise" mean. What is so extraordinary is that those words "or otherwise" have been selected both by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth and by another place. The other place left in the words. I believe that my hon. Friend owes it to the House to explain exactly what the words "or otherwise" mean. I think that he tried to explain them to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston, but, if I may say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth did not satisfy either my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston or my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South, who was paying particular attention to that exchange between my two hon. Friends. Indeed, it is very clear that the words "or otherwise" are causing very great trouble to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), so much so that he is writing me a note at this very moment in case, he does not catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
2.45 p.m.
Why did the other place seek to substitute the words of the Bill with words of its own choosing? It is not given to all of us to comprehend the reasons for action. The Under-Secretary of State for Industry has arrived, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and his arrival reminds me of what I was saying earlier to the effect 1993 that not all of us are in need of razor blades. However, I do not want to get further drawn into that aspect because I have now moved on to toothbrushes. But it is nevertheless the case that the regulations which could be made, and which are very directly apposite to the provisions of subsection (3) of clause 2, could, I believe, cause total consternation and a total inability on the part of members of the public to follow what we are trying to say.
I appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth to remain resolute. I do not believe that we ought to be in terrorem of the other place. I know that in that respect I shall carry with me Her Majesty's Ministers, and, I am sure, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Hafer). I am saying that we ought not to agree with their Lordships. If we agree with the words suggested by another place, I believe that we shall find that this legislation will be even more confusing than it would be if we accepted the wording of my hon. Friend.
We have so far examined only the specific cases of razor blades and toothbrushes. There are other items which can be purchased in the shops. It may be that I do not have much need for hairbrushes, and I would not dissent from that proposition. I shall leave these other items to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, who has been writing and toiling so assiduously during the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston and myself.
One might have thought that particularly on the Labour Benches there would be a readiness to agree with the superior virtues of this place as compared with another place. Yet, if I understood the Minister of State's most cogent speech correctly, he was advising the House to agree with another place.

§ Mr. John Fraser
The other place agreed with the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) and with the Opposition that these words are better than the words which were first in the Bill. It is very difficult when we have a debate and an amendment is withdrawn and the House then quarrels with a generally expressed wish to have more restrictive words. It is a great pity.

§ Mr. Gow
Genius though my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) is, the Minister of State must not say that because my hon. Friend thinks that the wording of the other place is superior, or believes that the amendment of the other place is right, that can be said to bind this House. None of us wishes to do other than pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey. Indeed, Pudsey is a very distinguished place. Sir Leonard Hutton was born there, as was Herbert Sutcliffe. I am sure that the Minister of State will know that it was Hutton who made 364 runs in 13 hours 20 minutes before being caught—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr Bryant Godman Irvine)
I doubt very much whether he had this amendment in mind.

§ Mr. Gow
I was saying that, great though the virtues of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey are and great though the historic qualities of Pudsey are, I do not think that we should be told that we are not allowed to favour the original Bill because my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey thinks that we ought to do something else. That is why I hope that this House will take its courage in both hands and will say that, whatever our respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey and whatever our respect for another place—and I know that the hon. Member for Walton has great respect for it—on this occasion we shall back the superiority of the judgment of this elected Chamber.

§ Mr. John Farr (Harborough)
We have heard some interesting arguments from hon. Members on both sides of the House, though mainly from my hon. Friends, and, on reflection, I do not think that the amendment is a marked improvement. However, I think that the House should bear in mind when we consider this clause, especially subsection (3), one lesson to which we cannot be blind, because subsection (3) probably is the most relevant and important provision in the Bill.
Clause 2 generally deals with offences against the safety regulations. Subsection (3) deals with people who contravene the provisions of safety regulations. However, before proceeding I think that the House should take cognisance of what has been one of the worst ever disasters 1995 involving safety just of the type dealt with by the Bill—namely, the accident which occurred on Monday at San Carlos de la Rapita in Spain, when a tanker load of liquefied propylene gas exploded.
A great many pertinent questions have been asked since that explosion, and I should like to take this opportunity of expressing, I am sure on behalf of all right hon. and hon. Members, the deepest concern and sorrow for the relatives of the 200 or so people who so far have died as a result of this horrifying accident. I understand that Her Majesty's Government are taking action to provide assistance where possible.
The explosion occurred in a way which, I am sure, is not likely to happen in this country. In Britain, propylene gas is mostly carried by rail. However, a certain amount is carried by road tanker, which is when the critical importance of subsection (3) comes into effect.
With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), razor blades can affect an individual. It is rare for one person to administer a razor blade other than to himself, so probably it could be said that he has only himself to blame if he has an accident with a razor blade. The same applies if he happens to swallow a toothbrush, which my hon. Friend seemed to envisage was quite possible.
The dependants of the people killed in Spain the other day do not think that way. The people who died were in no way responsible.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
We are discussing marks which are put on articles. I think that the hon. Member is not in order in what he is saying at the moment.

§ Mr. Body
"Or otherwise".

§ Mr. Farr
I am pointing out that the 230 people who lost their lives so tragically in Spain the other day were affected probably by the inadequate observance of safety regulations. The safety regulations there, as here, include a requirement for appropriate markings and information. It is questionable now whether they should not also include, whenever explosive chemicals of this nature are involved, instructions about the route that a vehicle carrying substances of this kind should be permitted 1996 to take. Even if safety regulations are observed to the letter, even if the markings referred to in the amendment are placed on the relevant goods and even if there is no human error, it may be that by some mechanical fault a terrible accident could occur. The accident in Spain occurred on a road adjacent to a very busy holiday centre. If the driver concerned had had instructions to take a motorway going nowhere near busy population centres, many hundreds of people would not be mourning their dead today.
Important though the prevention of accidents involving razor blades, toothbrushes and what I might describe as the other impedimenta of toiletry may be, when we are considering this Bill relating to consumer safety I think that the House should cast its mind beyond mundane day-to-day matters and take the opportunity to see whether this proposed legislation measures up to the requirements of the international situation which has arisen since their Lordships passed these amendments.
I hope that this debate will give the Minister the opportunity to comment on that disaster. So far as I am aware, it has not been referred to in the House this week, although one or two British lives are believed to have been lost. In my view, the Minister should tell the House whether, in the light of this latest disaster, he believes that these few words in subsection (3) are adequate, whether he believes that our consumer safety legislation is adequate, whether sufficient mention is made of the responsibilities of the carriers of these frightfully inflammable and explosive materials, and whether it is not necessary now to reconsider the regulations.

§ Mr. Ronald Bell
I am at a disadvantage in not having heard the Minister's speech. I was unavoidably absent from the Chamber when he was explaining why the Lords amendment should be accepted. I regret that, because I would have been interested to hear the reasons why we should prefer these words to those originally in the Bill.
The Minister suggested that we should agree to the change because these words had been called for by the House in the past. I wonder whether that was a lapsus linguae. I do not think that this 1997 matter has been before the House in the past. Perhaps the Minister was referring to the Report stage.
I listened with interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). He is not here now. He has obviously retired to correct the report of his speech in Hansard. At the end of his speech my hon. Friend lapsed into Latin phrases which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) found so disagreeable that he left the Chamber.
On reflection, I think that a more appropriate Latin quotation would have been that well-known one from Horace, which is rather more elegant: "Rusticus exspectat dum defluat amnis, At ille labitur et labetur in omne volubilis aevum." As my hon. Friends will know, this means that the rustic waits for the river to flow past and that it will flow on to all eternity.
At one point I was a little worried that my hon. Friend's conscientious examination of this Bill might imperil the prospects for my own Bill, which is thirty-eighth on the Order Paper. It is a very important matter, and if reached and passed it will transform the statute law of this kingdom.

§ Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)
It is only down for Second Reading.

§ Mr. Bell
That is true, but it could go through all its stages in one day.
I find this Lords amendment rather disturbing, because it is almost incomprehensible. Clause 2, to which the Lords amendment relates, is the penal clause. It sets out in the various subsections the things that establish an offence. I cannot imagine any part of the law that should be clearer than the penal provisions of any Act. I defy anybody who is not a professional lawyer to read through clause 2 and understand what each subsection means.
I am particularly concerned about subsection (3). I pay tribute to the ingenuity of my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Mr. Trotter) who sponsored the Bill. However, subsection (3) is, to start with, a little inelegant, especially for a penal clause. It says: If a person contravenes a provision of safety regulations which prohibits the provision 1998 Therefore, we have the word "provision" used in two completely different senses in two adjacent lines, which is not a very auspicious start for a penal clause.
The Lords amendment proposes that the words after "provision" in the second line of the subsection should be left out and replaced by the words on the Order Paper. They are: by means of a mark or otherwise, of information of a particular kind in connection with goods. If one compares the original text with the proposed change one sees that it is not just an improvement of words, or even a decline in the elegance of words; it changes the whole drift of the subsection. Without the Lords amendment, the subsection deals with a provision of safety regulations which prohibits the provision of inappropriate information relating to goods, either by means of misleading marks or otherwise. Therefore, it is striking at misleading marks or inappropriate information.
The Lords amendment changes the whole thrust of the subsection to a prohibition by means of a mark or otherwise—it need not be misleading—of information of a particular kind. In other words, it refers to specified information. It is a totally different provision.
I am not expressing comparative opinions on the merits of the two things. I have not followed the Bill as carefully as I should have done. We have had a hectic Session, and that is certainly an apt description of the week that lies ahead of us. I wish that I could have given detailed attention to all the legislative provisions that have been poured out in front of us, but that has been impossible.
I make no apology for the fact that I have not followed this Bill as closely as I should have done. I offer no judgment on the respective merits of the matter, but I question whether a Lords amendment should be used to change the general direction of a subsection in a penal provision. One expects Lords amendments of this drafting kind to tidy up or to comprise a more felicitous ex-expression of a generally understood intention; it is a change in what is being expression of a generally understood intention; it is a change in what is being struck at in the nature of the offence. I am not happy about that.
1999 I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne was happy about the situation. He was unhappy about a number of things, and it was a little difficult to isolate the exact outline of his discontent. I hope that the Minister will direct his mind to this point. Although I do not think this is the way in which a change of this character should be made, I feel that, if it is made, it should be explicitly made.
I should be happier in a case such as this if the whole of the subsection were struck out and a new subsection put in its place. One would then be on one's guard and realise that that part of the Bill was being rewritten in intention as well as in language. That is not the case, and here we are at six minutes past 3 o'clock on a Friday in July, the last day of private Members' time, considering virtually a cloud of Lords amendments to varying Bills. That is not a very satisfactory state of affairs.
I know that on the last day of private Members' time there is sudden death for a number of admirable proposals. In that respect this Friday is not unique. But if it is not unique, it is certainly in a small category in respect of the number of Lords amendments that we have been asked to consider to various Bills on a single Friday between 11 am and 4 pm. I do not see how one can give proper attention to this mass of stuff.
I say without hesitation that it is the Goverment's fault, because they set such a bad example in clogging up the legislative machine, and it is not surprising that that bad example flows into private Members' days.
The Minister of State is not the man to set aside bad example. Although he is an agreeable person, he has kept bad political company for so long that I fear he is now beyond redress. However, I am giving him an opportunity to answer some of these objections.

§ Mr. Lawrence
Will my hon. and learned Friend be good enough to assist the House and the Government with an observation that comes from his unchallenged superiority as a lawyer of worth and standing in this place? He has drawn attention to the lack of elegance of the clause as drafted and to the absurdity of the use of words and the 2000 slackness of meaning of subsection (3). Will he say something about the conclusion that must be drawn from this state of affairs and the action that needs to be taken? Is he aware that the pressure which this Government and, for all I know, successive Governments have loaded on the shoulders of that trained and experienced, but alas too small, body of men, the parliamentary draftsmen, has now become so unbearable that they allow the passage of rubbish such as this to be included in legislation coming before the House?
Is it not time for us, as legislators, seriously to consider increasing the size of the parliamentary draftsmen's office and giving them assistance so that those erudite and extremely wise people can spend more time considering such clauses so that they make more sense, are more elegant, and can be more easily understood by the layman, who, after all, has to understand them?

§ Mr. Bell
My hon. Friend has made a valid point. I sat for 18 years on the Statute Law Revision and Consolidation Committee and developed considerable respect for the skill of the parliamentary draftsmen. The problem is the volume of work flooding their office and making it difficult for them to draft Bills with the care that we should like.
It has been said of the speeches of politicians that it takes a lot of work to make a short speech but it is quite easy to make a long speech. Having said that, I must be careful not to make a long speech. The same principle is true of the drafting of Bills. This Bill is flatulent. It goes on and on, and rambles. It says that certain actions shall be an offence unless other conditions are fulfilled, and when one examines those conditions one finds another "unless" referring back to the first "unless". It is full of parentheses within parentheses.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I shall be obliged if the hon. and learned Gentleman will direct his remarks exclusively to the amendment under consideration.

§ Mr. Bell
I am doing so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendment is a good illustration of what I am saying.

§ Mr. Body
The parliamentary draftsmen have been severely criticised in general terms. Does my hon. and learned 2001 Friend, from his considerable experience, agree that it is inconceivable that any parliamentary draftsman was responsible for this drafting?

§ Mr. Bell
That is a fair point. I was earlier merely accepting what was put to me. It may be private drafting. An hon. Member has a very difficult ask if he is drafting a Private Member's Bill. He may even have the disadvantage of departmental help.
Clause 2 is drafted in exactly the manner that I have described. It establishes offences and then reduces them by defeasance clauses. Subsection (3) is in the middle of the process that I was describing. We cannot understand subsection (3) except in relation to subsections (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8). They must all be understood by the same person for him to know whether he is committing an offence under subsection (3).
In a way, the difficulty of comprehending subsection (3) is compounded by the fact that under the following clause, the Secretary of State is empowered to make orders to prohibit the supply or the offering for sale of goods specified in the order as being the sort of goods to which the prohibitions in clause 2 would apply. Unlike the safety regulations in clause 2, the prohibition orders are not subject to the affirmative resolutions procedure. That is an astonishing state of affairs.
3.15 p.m.
This sort of amendment must be considered with great care because of all that is geared on to it. For example, in the context of clause 12(2) a prohibition order is subject to the negative procedure. We cannot take these drafting points in quite the confident manner that I assume was taken by the Minister of State. I must safeguard myself, because I did not hear his speech. However, I heard his intervention, in which he seemed to imply that because on Report there had been a request for rephrasing we should not look a gift horse in the mouth but should accept without undue examination what their Lordships have done.
I was accused by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne of having exaggerated respect for another place. That is not so. In its judicial capacity I accept that it is supreme, but in its drafting 2002 capacity it is a part of the political legislature and not the supreme court of appeal. I have not the slightest reason to believe that any of their legally qualified Lordships, who constitute the ultimate court of appeal, had any hand in drafting the amendment.
I regard the amendment as a straightforward political amendment to a normal Bill that must be judged in the light of our own common sense and our estimate of its value. It is upon that estimate that I invite my hon. Friends to consider carefully whether it is an amendment that they can support when the time comes.

§ Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)
It is a rare occasion when I find myself in disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). It is an even rarer event when I find myself in disagreement with both my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell). I agree with them so often that I have great respect for their wisdom and judgment in these matters. If ever I am in doubt whether I am right or wrong, I am led to feel sure that I am pursuing the right course if I find that the Minister of State is in opposition to me.

§ Mr. Ronald Bell
My hon. Friend will probably find himself in agreement with me on the 38th Order of the Day, which proposes to repeal the European Communities Act. I hope that he will not talk out that Order of the Day.

§ Mr. Moate
I look forward to an extended debate on that issue. I sense that my hon. and learned Friend and I will be in total agreement with that modest proposition.
On this occasion I feel that the Minister of State is right and my hon. Friends are wrong. It is not a matter of challenging the wisdom of an amendment produced by their Lordships. The Minister is right to say that the amendment was produced in another place because there was a widespread feeling on Report in this place that the present wording was wrong. It is clear that the amendment was produced by another place to meet the genuine fears, anxieties and doubts expressed in this place.
2003 Some of us are rather puzzled that it was the Minister who, on Report, persuaded us that the Bill was right. I missed some of his speech today, but it seems that he has changed his mind. On 28th April he said: I was asked whether the word 'appropriate', which has been chosen, was in the law already. It is not, but I hope that it will be in future in this Bill. The word 'appropriate' is rather wide, but it is necessary."—[Official Report, 28th April 1978; Vol. 948, c. 1842.] The hon. Gentleman went on fairly to say that he would consider the arguments that had been advanced. However, he put forward a strong case for the inclusion of "appropriate". He is now being supported in his original argument by my hon. Friends, who are saying that he was right in the first place. He has changed his mind now and is supporting the amendment that seeks to delete "appropriate" or "inappropriate". I take the view that the amendment is right and that the Minister's original argument was wrong.
Our concern was that the words "inappropriate information" were meaningless and so imprecise as to be misleading. We were concerned that they would cause more confusion in the law.
In the debate only one example was given of the kind of misleading information that could be used. That was the strange example of Christmas crackers, which could have on the box "These have been approved by Her Majesty's Inspector of Explosives". That struck most hon. Members who took part in the debate as an unlikely area of danger. The words "inappropriate information" were still far too wide.
The argument then proceeded on whether the words "inappropriate information" would be included in the regulations. It was not clear whether they would or would not be included. It was possible that "inappropriate information" could be used in the regulations. As a matter of law, that struck the House as very bad phraseology. I think that we were right to ask that those words should be deleted and that we should have much more specific phraseology. The new phraseology in the Lords amendment meets that requirement. It takes out the words: 2004 inappropriate information relating to goods either by means of misleading marks or otherwise". The wording proposed in the amendment is better than the wording in the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the House will decide finally to accept the amendment as a distinct improvement on the Bill.
I also disagree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield on the general point in subsection (3), as amended, if it is to be amended. He said that clause 2 was the penal clause and that it was wrong that it should be dependent upon regulations.

§ Mr. Ronald Bell
No, I did not say that; I said that it was wrong that it should be virtually incomprehensible.

§ Mr. Moate
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that correction. That brings us back to the question whether it is right or wrong to introduce safety regulations of this kind by statutory instrument. Having considered this matter, and disliking the whole welter of statutory instruments that we are getting, it seems to me that there is no other way to introduce safety regulations than by statutory instruments. They are essentially of a technical nature. They are likely to change fairly frequently. Therefore, the only way that this can be done is by a series of regulations subject to parliamentary procedure.

§ Mr. Bell
My hon. Friend misunderstands the point that I made. I did not criticise that aspect. The safety regulations under clause 2 are subject to the affirmative procedure. We cannot complain about that. I mentioned in passing that prohibition orders under clause 3 were subject to the negative procedure. I made a small point about that in passing.

§ Mr. Moate
The point is that the parent statute must of necessity be fairly widely drafted, because the regulations will be specific. Subsection (3) may be somewhat confusing and imprecise, but that does not mean that the regulations, when they emerge, will be imprecise. Of course, they could be imprecise, but that is the situation which we always face with legislation of this kind. The fact that subsection (3) is imprecise and perhaps confusing does not mean that the regulations will be confusing. I have come 2005 round to the view that it is right to have the regulatory power.
I make this brief intervention to say that the Minister has carried out the wishes of those hon. Members who spoke on Report. Of course, they are not necessarily the views of the House as a whole. But I believe that the new wording is rather better than the wording in the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the House will agree with their Lordships.
Lastly, I should like to make a slight criticism of the new wording. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield that the drafting is poor. It is needlessly confusing. Why could we not have made it clear that the regulations could prohibit misleading information? That is all that we need to have done. That has not been done. The word "inappropriate" is used in the first instance. If the amendment were accepted, the clause would prohibit the use of information of a particular kind". Why do we use the words "particular kind"? Why cannot we say that we will ban misleading information? If the regulations say that information which is misleading should be banned, that should be enough. When one uses words such as "particular kind" one asks the question—what particular kind? If we mean misleading, why do we not use that word?

§ Mr. John Fraser
If one created an offence of providing "inappropriate information" the provisions in the regulations would then be so broad as to give an undue discretion to Ministers, and expose people to risk. The words "of a particular kind" mean that there must be a degree of accuracy and precision in regulations relating to an offence. That is right.

§ Mr. Moate
I shall not pursue the matter. It seems an unnecessary phrase to me. Phraseology which would ban specific information that is undesirable would be sufficient and make the clause clearer. The amendment represents an improvement in the original wording and I hope that the House will agree to it.

§ Mr. Trotter
Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) I have another Bill on the Order 2006 Paper, which is no. 32 and slighly ahead of his. I am therefore also keen to see progress.
There has been considerable discussion about the drafting of the Bill. For nearly a year it has been an interesting experience for me to be involved in it. My aim was to produce legislation which was manifestly plain and simple, but it soon became apparent that although the concept of consumer safety is simple, to strike a balance is extremely complex. It became apparent that if we were to be fair we had to produce a wide-ranging Act with all the details spelled out. That made it necessary to introduce complications. My aim has been to keep those complications to the minimum.
I believe that the regulations will be simple. Regulations were made under the 1961 Act. I have in my possession the children's clothing and footwear regulations to which the Minister of State referred earlier. It is a simple document of just over one page, which is written in a style which I. as an accountant and not a lawyer, find comprehensible. It has been distributed widely with a one-page letter which is also written in simple and clear language. I believe that that practice will continue in the regulations made under this Bill.
Consultation has been a feature of the Bill. It took place over a long period because of the difficulties encountered by other private Member's Bills. More than 300 bodies and individuals were asked for their views on the Bill in its original form. As a result a great deal of discussion and consultation took place. No fewer than 178 amendments were tabled. They were not all taken into the Bill, but there have been many amendments to the Bill. I see nothing but good in that. Many of the amendments were made in the Lords, partly because the consultation on the drafting was not practicable before the Bill left the Commons.
Some of the comments on the clause that we are discussing have gone wide of its content. The clause is straightforward. I can see no difficulties about the wording. The change is a result of the persuasive arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) on 28th April. It is a pity that my hon. Friends who have come to support the Bill this afternoon were not able 2007 to be present on that occasion, no doubt because of constituency commitments. If they had heard my hon. Friend's persuasive arguments they would have understood the reasons for the amendment.

§ Mr. Ronald Bell
I hope that my hon. Friend does not feel injured or aggrieved about the length of the debate this afternoon. Lord Morley once said to Phillip Cunliffe Lister "If at the end of a long public life you have done one good thing, stopped two bad things and compromised on the rest, you will have done well." My hon. Friend might find that today's long debate will have done one good thing, stopped two bad things and compromised on the rest.

§ Mr. Trotter
I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for his comments. The debates at all stages of the Bill have been helpful. It is beneficial for proposals that are put before the House to be subject to the maximum of discussion and comment, and I welcome the comments that have been made this afternoon, even though some of them may have been a little long winded.
I appreciate that time is passing, and I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has spent a great deal of time preparing himself for his participation in the debate, so I shall be brief in order not to deprive him of the opportunity of enlightening us on the results of his researches.
There has been a controversy over the word "mark". The point is straightforward, however. If we forget for one moment the word "mark", the regulation will simply provide specifically that certain types of information may not be portrayed in connection with certain goods. For instance, it is possible for paint to have a very high lead content. It may be necessary therefore for information to be banned from a tin of that paint if it suggested that the paint was suitable for use on children's furniture which the children might lick or even chew. It would be wrong for a tin of paint to bear any indication that it was suitable for such use if it was not.
The regulation would spell out what was prohibited. There would be no 2008 vagueness. The actual wording would be spelt out.

§ Mr. Moate
If it is to be spelt out, how will that be done in the regulations? Why does one need to have in the amendment the words "of a particular kind"? Surely it is not necessary to import that general statement if the regulations are to be as precise as my hon. Friend suggests they would be—and he is right to pursue such precision.

§ Mr. Trotter
I take my hon. Friend's point. I had not read the wording in that light. I believe that the words lend emphasis and stress to the word "information". I accept that the Bill could well have said which prohibits the provision of information in connection with goods". The emphasis was on the particular nature of the information. It indicates a desire not to have generalised information. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) addressed the House at considerable length on Report about the inadvisability of a general ban. It is for that reason that the words "of a particular kind" have been included. But for the debate on Report, the words would not have been before us now.
Let me deal with the question of the mark. It could be that a product was put on the market wrongly bearing the sign of the British Standards Institution. It is possible for misleading information to be in the form of some well-recognised symbol, and it was to spell out the need to include the misuse of such a symbol that the words were added to the subsection. The matter is fairly straightforward when seen in that context.
How will the Bill work in the future? I believe that it will work on this point as in the past, with regulations made with clarity and infrequently, as under the 1961 Act.