§ EARL BEAUCHAMP rose to call attention to Command Paper 3120; and to move to resolve, That the circulation of Papers which convey so little information is a waste of public money. The noble Earl said: My Lords, you will see that the Command Paper to which I call attention is one issued under the Merchandise Marks Act. I notice on the Table of the House this afternoon a Paper dealing with the procedure of Inquiries under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. That, of course, has nothing to do with the Paper to which I refer, issued under the Merchandise Marks Act, the procedure under which is wholly different from that under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. The reason why I have put down this Notice is really to try to find out what the Report means. Does it mean that there is an extension of marking of this merchandise, or does it mean that fewer things will be marked under this particular Order? Quite lately the same Standing Committee has issued a number of very interesting documents dealing with briar pipes, baths, brushes, and lamps. In all those Papers, which I hold in my hand, very much more information is vouchsafed to the public than is given in Command Paper 3120. There are three or four pages at least in regard to tooth brushes and shaving brushes, two or three dealing with incandescent lamps, five pages dealing with enamelled iron baths, and five pages dealing with briar pipes. It is only when we come to this Paper, dealing with cabinet furniture of metal, that we are given very little information.
§ We have often in this House objected to legislation by reference. Here we have administration by reference, and, just as your Lordships have more than once protested against legislation by reference, I think we are entitled to ask for more information about this particular Paper. I wonder whether it is that the futilities of the Merchandise Marks Act would be exposed if we were given more information with regard to it. Metal cabinet furniture apparently is to have stamped upon it its source of origin. Would the noble Viscount in his answer tell us why that is so? The 787 other Papers to which I have referred explain to us the full history of the matters they deal with. On this occasion we are given no such information, and it is not an unimportant matter. It will help to raise the cost of living to the people of this country, and if I am right in my assumption that this means that more things are to be stamped, then it is only an attempt at the secret extension of the cost of living.
§ I turn to the Paper itself. It says quite flatly in the second paragraph that no representations have been made to the Committee in this matter. Were representations asked for? In all the other documents dealing with similar Inquiries we have been told when the Inquiries were held. Were representations asked for, or did this Committee sit for one day at the Board of Trade for an hour and wonder if anybody would knock at the door, without knowing anything about what was going on inside? What exactly happened? We are told so much more in these other Papers that I think I am justified in asking exactly what happened upon the present occasion. Was any notice given beforehand that there was going to be an Inquiry? Was there any publicity of any sort or kind? The Committee tell us that no representations were made: did they give any opportunity to people to make representations? What deliberations did they hold? Did they hold any deliberations at all? Did they sit and, if they sat, did they sit in public? That the Papers which have been laid by His Majesty's Government on the Table of your Lordships' House this afternoon have nothing to do with the case I have already pointed out; they refer to the Safeguarding of Industries Act and not to the Merchandise Marks Act under which this particular Paper is printed.
§ I do not really object of course to the use of public money, which is very small in amount, that is involved in this case. What I object to is the lack of information in this particular Paper. I object very strongly to the idea that the bureaucracy of this country should grant privileges to specially favoured trades without full publicity being given to the matter. I do not think we can be told too much about it when these opportunities are given to officials of the Board 788 of Trade to give special advantages to particular trades without full information being given to the public, not only before the Inquiry, if it is held, but afterwards in order that people may know exactly what is happening. For my own part I think that it would have been very much better had there been a Committee of the House of Commons to deal with matters of this kind. We should then have been dealing with responsible people in a responsible position and the Inquiries would probably have been made in public. There is nothing in this Paper to show that any Inquiry of any sort or kind was made, and although I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to show us that there has been, I would ask why it is, if a full Inquiry was made, that this particular Committee do not say so. It could not have done any harm had they told us more about it. The Committee do not even say, as has been done in similar Papers, that they held an Inquiry or that they made those inquiries which they certainly made in regard to other and similar Papers. I beg to move.
§ Moved to resolve, That the circulation of Papers which convey so little information as Command Paper 3120 is a waste of public money.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL)My Lords, I feel sure that no one will criticise the noble Earl for bringing forward this Motion, which has reference to Command Paper 3120. The cost of this Report is £1 8s. 4d. Sometimes we have discussions on the large expenditure of money and, if the noble Earl will allow me to say so, it is most creditable to the researches he has made into the expenditure of His Majesty's Government that he is directing attention to the comparatively minute sum of £1 8s. 4d. As I say, I do not criticise the noble Earl for that at all, because I believe that the only way of keeping down an expenditure of over £800,000,000 is by keen critics like the noble Earl devoting themselves to the minutiæ of expenditure. But I understand that on this occasion he does not so much object to the £1 8s. 4d. as to the fact that, as he alleges, there is some lack of lucidity about the Paper itself. It is always very difficult, I think, to assume that ignorance of the law excuses nobody, because I feel so ignorant of many portions 789 of the law that I should be glad to plead that excuse; but in this case I do not think the noble Earl need have pleaded that excuse. He really assumed, I think, that this was the only document issued in connection with this particular proposal. There was, of course, a former document, the Order in Council, which was published and to which, of course, this forms something in the nature of an exception.
Most of the noble Earl's observations proceeded really on a false assumption, because he appeared to consider that some addition was made to the hardships of traders, as he suggested, by the marking of goods; whereas it is exactly the opposite. This is in the direction of exemption and, therefore, I should have thought it ought to have been hailed with enthusiasm by the noble Earl. It says that certain classes of goods which might have come under the Order are to be excluded from the Order by an Exemption Direction of the Board of Trade. Therefore, all the emotion he displayed about the trouble of marking these goods is to some extent beside the point because the document really relieves them of the marking. How does that arise? The noble Earl says that sufficient information is not given. I was rather puzzled as to what the particular obscurity was to which he called attention, because it seemed to me, on reading it, to be fairly clear. There was an Order made which, of course, was passed after the usual full inquiries. Then this Order is what is called an Exemption Direction; that is to say, an Order issued by the Board of Trade exempting from the provisions of the Order itself certain small articles which were not suitable to be marked. This can only be done for a time of course, and an Order in Council must confirm this Exemption Direction.
Meanwhile, the matter was referred in the usual way to a Committee. The noble Earl asked me a great number of questions about that Committee—whether it sat in public, whether it heard evidence, whether it considered the matter, and so on. I am able to reassure him upon that point. Notices were published in the different Gazettes saying that this matter had been referred to the Committee. I am sorry that I really do not know how long the Committee sat, 790 but I will find that out if the noble Earl is much concerned to know it. But as nobody objected and as no evidence was submitted to the Committee I imagine they arrived rather rapidly at a conclusion upon the subject. There was nothing for them to discuss, and they decided that this Exemption Direction might fairly be embodied in the new Order in Council. Everybody was satisfied, and I think there was no reason for anybody to appear.
I am not quite sure what the noble Earl really requires, because I think some of his questions were founded, if I may respectfully say so, on the fact that he had not sufficiently committed to memory the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1929. Had he been as familiar with those provisions as he was at the time he would have known exactly what this Exemption Direction was. But if he thinks there is some lack of lucidity, some obscurity about it, I should be extremely glad if he would co-operate with me and offer suggestions for making the matter more lucid; because, as far as I can see, it would be a little difficult to do that unless some provisions of the Act of 1926 were embodied. Taken together with the Act of 1926, I think the provisions are sufficiently clear, but if the noble Earl would be good enough to suggest anything I am sure the Board of Trade would be glad to have any help from him. I am positive that an enlargement of these Papers might add to some extent to the expense, and if instead of it being £1 8s. 4d. the price were £1 9s. or £1 10s., I am sure the noble Earl would then object to the expenditure, even if greater lucidity were obtained. I hope, having invited him to give all the assistance he can, he will not press the Motion, though I entirely agree that when you have information given it ought to be clear and that Papers ought not to be circulated which do not give much information. It is, however, difficult for me to accept the Motion because it conveys some criticism of the action of the Board of Trade. I thank the noble Earl for raising the point and ask for his assistance. I trust with that he may withdraw the Motion.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPMy Lords, the noble Viscount realises that I never had any intention of pressing this Motion but that my intention was merely to call 791 attention to the matter. I think it is enough to say that a Paper should simply explain itself, and I would point out once more that it is impossible for any one reading this Paper to understand what it is about. Therefore, with the best will in the world one could not possibly understand it. I am quite sure that what the noble Viscount says is right, and if the information which he has given us in his speech had been given in the Paper it would not have cost a penny more. It could have been done at the same expense and we should have had something that explained to us what the Paper was about. I would venture to ask the noble Viscount to represent to the Board of Trade that when Papers of this kind are circulated they should make clear on the face of them what their object is and what they do. Having said that I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.