Lords Sitting of 14 November 1962

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD MERTHYR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans

COMMON LAND LEGISLATION
2.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they still intend to introduce legislation relating to Common Land, as forecast in statements made by them in December, 1959, June, 1960 and November, 1961: and whether they are aware that continued uncertainty as to their intentions in this matter is leading to difficulties in certain cases.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, I regret that so far it has not been possible to introduce legislation on the lines indicated by my right honourable friend on November 6, 1961, but it remains the intention to do so as soon as Parliamentary time permits. I hope that this will remove any uncertainty as to the Government's intention, but I am aware that problems will remain in the meantime.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for the courteous terms in which the reply was given, perhaps I might ask a question arising from it. Since the Royal Commission was set up no less than seven years ago, does he not think that any definite information, even though it may be negative, would be preferable to this policy of "jam to-morrow", which has been going on for the last four years? In other words, if my noble friend really means that there is no likelihood of something being done before, say,
602
the next General Election, would it not be better to say so?
LORD ST. OSWALD: No, my Lords; I could not possibly give that negative information. To begin with, I do not know when the next General Election is to be; and further, it has not been decided in any way at all how soon or how late Parliamentary time will be found for this legislation.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Dartmoor Commons are disastrously overstocked, the grazing never rested and fertilisation rarely carried out? Could not the commoners rest the moor from January to March, and then use the commonland, as was done in the past, to graze only the number of stock which they can raise on their own pastures in the winter?
LORD ST. OSWALD: If I am to reply literally to my noble friend, what I can tell him is this. I have heard such reports, but I have had no official confirmation and I am making inquiries. In reply to his second question, certainly the commoners could do exactly what my noble friend thinks they should do, but no Government can oblige them to do so.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of the wording of the Question and in view of the difficulties of interpreting this monumental work which the Royal Commission have produced, would the noble Lord consider making known from which quarter, if any, some information would more easily be obtained on the many difficulties covered by the Question with regard to the interpretation of matters arising from this law of commons, including the difficulty of procedure for setting up manorial courts and the appointment of the officers therefor?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I do not know how I can help my noble friend at this juncture. As he knows, my right honourable friend has already forecast legislation on the first of the recommendations of the Commission; that is to say, the registration of commons and rights. We think that this is the first stage to be undertaken, and the chief cause at the moment of the uncertainty described by my noble friend who asked

603
the original Question. If my noble friend Lord Barnby has any questions on the interpretation of the Report, which is what I understand is disturbing him, and he will communicate them to me, I will do my best to pass them on to quarters where they can be interpreted. But I am not certain that any interpretation of the Report exists at the moment other than is contained in the terms of the Report itself.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for his reply, and recognise that he says the delay must inevitably occur, may I ask whether, in giving thought to this matter, he can bear in mind the problems which have been developed by the massively increasing registrations of automobiles and the reaction of these on commoners' rights and the manorial rights? There appears to be difficulty in finding what authorities would be or should be applied to and what interpretation should be given.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I think those matters must rest until legislation is framed.

BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD CHAIRMAN
2.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is delaying the appointment of a chairman for the new British Waterways Board, whose vesting date is now close upon us.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, my right honourable friend is concerned to find the best available man for this important appointment. He hopes to announce the appointment soon.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, is not one of the troubles that he is suffering under the remarkable shortage
604
of executives of sufficient calibre and experience in this very specialised industry who agree with the Minister's policies?
LORD CHESHAM: Not that I am aware of, my Lords.

GRANTS FOR MUSEUM EXHIBITS
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when a decision can be expected with regard to special grants which have been applied for by National Museums and other interested bodies to enable them to purchase exhibits of historic interest at present owned by the Royal United Services Institution.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I would refer the noble Lord to the reply I gave on November 8 to the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, about the National Maritime Museum. The purchase grant of the Scottish United Services Museum is being increased to enable certain items from the Royal United Services Institution Museum to be obtained. The Trustees of the Imperial War Museum have been advised that a special grant of up to £1,500 will be approved should it prove to be necessary. Any requests for special grant from other national museums for this purpose will be considered on their merits.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. It was these other institutions in which I was interested. Could the noble Earl say that it is still the policy of the Government to facilitate the keeping of these historic relics in this country?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, my Lords. We will consider any applications that we reoeive from the other museums as sympathetically as we can, having regard to the usual criteria on which we judge these applications.

SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS BILL [H.L.]
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1958. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Somers.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, my moble friend the Leader of the House does not propose to move his Motion on the Order Paper, because it has been agreed, through the usual channels, to take the Motion standing in his name, on the setting up of the Tribunal, not as first Business but at a convenient time after half-past three in order not to anticipate proceedings in another place.
I should also like to take this opportunity of letting your Lordships know that my noble friend Lord Derwent proposes to make a statement on the Japanese Treaty of Commerce, Establishment and Navigation. I accordingly propose that the debate on the Motion in the name of Lady Burton of Coventry should be adjourned art some convenient moment after half-past three, that we should then take the statement of my noble friend Lord Derwont, followed immediately by the Motion of my noble friend the Leader of the House on the setting up of the Tribunal. On the conclusion of that Business the proceedings on the noble Lady's Motion will be resumed.

THE MOLONY REPORT ON CONSUMER PROTECTION
2.46 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY rose to call attention to the Final Report of the Committee on Consumer Protection (Cmnd. 1781); and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper this afternoon, I think I cannot do better than to start with last July, when several Questions had appeared on the Order
606
Paper, and a noble Lord opposite said to me, "I wish you would tell us who this Molony is." I hope to do that to-day, and I hope that the noble Lord will not regret his request.
It seemed to me that the best way to explain all this was to start at the beginning, and show how I came in. A long time ago, in 1952, I was told that some manufacturers were fighting strongly for the legal interpretation of the word "woollen" to mean merely a process of spinning. This, if it were agreed, would have meant that the terms "woollen" and "worsted" would have been acceptable in the courts as describing rayon suits and dresses. I was no technical expert, but this would have been manifestly absurd—an opinion shared by many trade associations. But it would have been pushed through if the matter had not been brought to the attention of the House. The Drapers' Record on December 20, 1952, said:
"The claim of the Yorkshire firms is absurd. One might as well contend that it would be lawful to describe as 'gold' any article made of a base metal that is processed in the same way as gold. Consumers are entitled to know what they are buying…"
We now come to the case of the pillow and the duck. There was a very downy duck on the cellophane cover of this pillow, but what was implied was not correct. After raising this matter in another place an aggrieved shopper, who had bought one of these pillows, wrote to me and said:
"If the President of the Board of Trade requires proof of these statements you made I can supply it. I recently bought a pillow labelled as having been made by this firm. If any of the feathers in it are not more suitable for decorating a hat, I am prepared to eat the same hat, I will give a representative of the Board of Trade permission to open the pillow and examine the contents for himself."
I may say, my Lords, that the Board of Trade did not feel able to bother with this suggestion. My third and last illustration concerns the problem of "should it be washed or cleaned?"—a problem not only for the customers, but for the laundries and cleaners. On this I received much abuse—pleasant abuse, of course, couched in very Parliamentary terms, including suggestions that I had better go and work in a laundry to see what all this was about; or, alternatively, that I wanted everything run from Whitehall. The debate was not

607
on a very high level, and I think perhaps it was best exemplified by the Conservative M.P. who said:
"I do not know what my shirt is made of but it has got lots of stripes in it. It has been to the laundry several times and still looks respectable…"
Those are only three stories from a wonderful collection, culminating in the advice from the then President of the Board of Trade that people who thought they had cause for complaint should go to a solicitor. The Drapers' Record of April 10, 1954, said on this:
"What an instruction to consumers in general, including all those who cannot afford to consult a lawyer, let alone pay him to compile the necessary evidence and, if need be, launch a prosecution …".
Going on to speak of the Merchandise Marks Act, the Drapers' Record had this to say:
"Unless this legislation is rigorously enforced its provisions will soon be ignored by the dishonest. We regard it as the duty of the Board of Trade to protect consumers and traders in this matter."
I would add here—although it is quite unnecessary, I am sure—that the Drapers' Record is not a political publication but one of the highest reputation in the drapery trade.
In all these matters, over all this time, the Board of Trade were completely unhelpful—unhelpful presumably because the Government did not believe that these were matters meriting their attention. In fact, the maxim for the Government was caveat emptor!: let the buyer beware! However, during 1955 their attitude showed signs of changing. Gradually more prosecutions were undertaken; sometimes at Question Time answers were, "Yes" instead of, "No"; and suddenly, in July, 1959, just prior to the General Election, a Committee was set up under Mr. Justice Molony to review the working of the existing legislation relating to merchandise marks and certification trade marks and to consider and report what changes in the law and what other measures, if any, were desirable for the further protection of the consuming public.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lady, but just for the Record and to get her speech right, he is not Mr. Justice Molony; he is Mr. Molony.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I thank the noble Lord very much. I obviously promoted him as such.
Three years later, in July of this year, the Committee reported. My Lords, the Government, with what might almost be called indecent haste, accepted the main proposal on the following day, July 26. The main proposal really consists of two parts—and I quote:
"There is need, we think, for two positive measures of a general character: the provision of a local advisory service to which the consumer can turn for guidance and help, and the creation of a national body charged with the overall duty of protecting his interest."
We on this side of the House accept and welcome such a recommendation. Molony says—and I hope noble Lords will not take amiss references to the Molony Report being shortened to "Molony"; no discourtesy is intended:
"In the last 25 years, particularly in the last ten, enormous changes have taken place in commerce in ways profoundly affecting the consumer. We instance the marketing of new synthetic materials, the introduction of self-service buying, the development of advertising and packaging techniques. There is no reason to doubt that the next 25 years will see equally startling changes."
I think that people should be better informed about such changes, and not told what to buy but given the information on which to buy; and I think an apt comment on this point could be taken from the Observer newspaper of July, 1960, when it said:
"'Let the buyer beware' is not only the law's general attitude, but sound practical advice as well. His trouble may be, however, that he does not know what to beware of…".
As I said a moment ago, the Government accepted the main proposal of the Molony Report when the Prime Minister said on July 26 last [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 663, col. 1765]:
"The Report of the Molony Committee was published yesterday…The Government have decided to accept the proposal to set up a Consumer Council."
For the purposes of this debate I am assuming that this means acceptance of the proposal linked, in my opinion, in-dissolubly with it for the provision of a local advisory service.
My Lords, in Great Britain a good deal of consumer advice work has been going on for many years and various organisations, particularly the women's organisations, have done much consumer

609
advice work, while some Consumer Councils have been set up in connection with nationalised industries. All this work, however, is loose and disjointed. Some people do not even know that it exists; and those who do have no idea how to get their view expressed in the right quarter. The two organisations which are probably best known to the general public are the Consumers' Association Limited, publishers of Which?, and the British Standards Institution, whose Consumer Advisory Council published Shopper's Guide until very recently but for which a new and independent Consumer Advisory Trust has now been established. As we know, one is always in a difficulty in mentioning some names but not all. However, I wish to pay tribute to the Retail Trading Standards Association and to its Director, Mr. Roger Diplock, who has done so much to help the consumer as well as the trader.
I turn now to a matter which I think we should examine in some detail, the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. But immediately before I do so I must put on the record that my noble friends and I, and indeed all the consumer organisations with whom I have discussed the matter, would have made this Consumer Council much more radical. We are doubtful if it has been given teeth strong enough really to do the job. What I am going to say to-day is based on this foundation, because I and my friends want to see this Council work. The section dealing with the Citizens' Advice Bureaux commences on page 160 and the relevant recommendations are 108, 109 and 110. As I said a moment ago, part of the Report's main proposal is the provision of a local advisory service to which the consumer can turn for guidance and help. Molony suggests that this can best be done by Citizens' Advice Bureaux who would thus handle all complaints.
I have a very high opinion of the work of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. I am sure it is known to us all and I would think everyone in this House shares that high opinion. It has become particularly well known to people in connection with its work concerning the Rent Act, but, as you and I know, it handles all types of complaints and I think specifically I would mention here complaints arising out of hire purchase. The system is that the majority of these complaints are dis-
610
posed of at local level. Some are recommended to trade organisations such as the R.T.S.A., and some to Members of Parliament, as many of us know quite well. Secondly, where the Bureaux worker is in doubt the case is referred to the centre, their own national Committee. Thirdly, where legal advice is necessary the local bureau can direct the inquirer on the right lines because they keep lists of solicitors on the voluntary and statutory Legal Advice Panels, and forms of application for advice under the statutory scheme.
I myself have always favoured and recommended that in connection with some central Consumer Council responsibility locally might rest with a C.A.B. or with an extra person at the offices of the local authority. But I had not envisaged that this responsibility nationally should be taken away from the Central Council. The first reactions from consumer organisations and from people knowledgeable on consumer matters was one of doubt, and I was myself doubtful too; but for two reasons I felt this must be given a trial. The first reason was one I have already mentioned, my high opinion of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux; and my second opinion was a realisation we all share, that this must be a political decision and if the Government are prepared to agree then we must see if it will work.
I have had, since the publication of the Report, personal lengthy discussion with the C.A.B. centrally. There were, and there are, certain doubts in my mind and it is these that I should like to mention now, but I would wish to emphasise that anything I say should be laid at my door and not at the door of the C.A.B. The first problem that I raised with them was one concerning technical appraisement or technical advice. I ask them how they are going to deal with this, because throughout the country some bureaux must be stronger than others but everyone would have this problem. If somebody comes in to see you with some goods on which they want an opinion they may be goods they have brought with them and you can look at them on the spot; or they may be goods they want somebody to come and see. In many cases they may require real technical knowledge. I wanted to know how the bureaux were going to cope with this.

611
Obviously they had given it a great deal of thought. They realised that the cost of such investigation would not be small and might be out of all proportion to the value of the articles involved. Furthermore, even if the customer could afford to pay this he might well not be willing to do so. Yet the bureaux argued that to expect that the cost of every investigation that seemed to be justified should be made by public funds would be uneconomic, and they hoped that the majority of complaints would be covered by these three aspects: one, enforcement of the Merchandise Marks Act; two, by the help of trade associations with good testing facilities; three, by the help of local authorities in instances of outstanding importance or need.
I do not think that is going to meet the case. I believe it is absolutely essential that this problem of technical advice is dealt with, and I wish to make a proposal to the Government. I think that, attached to this central Consumer Council, as part of its set-up, there must be technical advice available; and to begin with I think this technical advice should cover four main classes of goods, the four main classes of goods mentioned in the Report as giving rise to the largest number of complaints over past years (that is to say, clothing and textiles, footwear, carpets, and electrical appliances), so that any local citizens' advice bureau which has merchandise brought to it on which it cannot get good technical advice itself or locally would refer the matter to the centre.
The second point I asked the Citizens'Advice Bureaux was whether they felt that a complete picture of the complaints position throughout the country would be made available to the central Consumer Council; in other words, would this central Consumer Council, at the end of each year if you like, know the position in the country and be able to recommend to the Government if certain changes were necessary in any type of procedure? The Citizens' Advice Bureaux told me that they did envisage this being done, but they said it would have to be done by sample; they would not have the staff for more detailed analysis. I want to tell the Government quite definitely that it is essential, if
612
this Consumer Council is to work, that this complete picture is presented to it, and I want to tell them what I am sure the House will realise, that a skilled technical staff will be necessary for this purpose.
The third point I raised with the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, and I did it with some diffidence, was the question of finance. I did it with some diffidence because it is quite obvious that Molony has arrived at his financial estimates after discussions with the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, and I do not think that they asked for nearly enough money. As your Lordships will know, the Citizens' Advice Bureaux centrally receive a grant at present from the Minister of Housing and Local Government of £5,000 per annum, and it is suggested in the Report that they should receive an additional grant rising at the end of two years to £35,000 per annum. I said to the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, "Do you really think this is enough money to do the job?"I understood from them that they had two problems here, and the first problem was this: they were very anxious that they should not seem to receive from anywhere a grant greatly out of proportion to any other grant (received toy them for any other aspect of their work; and, arising from that, as of course the Minister of State will know, was the anxiety of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux that this particular work, this local advisory service, should not seem to dominate the other work done by them.
The second point which they made to me and which I thought was of great significance was that they did not feel they would have sufficient staff at the beginning to justify asking for more money, because it takes three years for the Citizens Advice Bureaux to train their workers, and after that training is continuous.
My fourth point leads on from that before I comment on it. I asked whether they were not alarmed at the rush of work which would probably ensue if this Council were set up and this local advisory service were given to them to run. Because I assured them that I should certainly do my best to see that a lot of publicity gave rise to a great deal of work coming their way. They had considered this and were worried about it.

613
The point I want to make, with great emphasis, is that I do not think all the implications here have been sufficiently recognised. If a local advisory service of this nature is to be set up I consider this to be of even greater urgency than the setting up of a Consumer Council, because the Consumer Council cannot function without it.
Now I would make three remarks on behalf of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, although they have not asked me to do so. The first is that if they are asked by the Government to accept this work, and if they accept, they would hope that their decision would be acceptable to all political Parties. Secondly, they could not function on any Party basis. Thirdly, they would not be willing to embark on work which might be changed according to which political Party was in power. I am quite sure that the House would accept all those points. I personally should desire the Citizens' Advice Bureaux to succeed, but I am left with one doubt. Can this job be done by the Citizens' Advice Bureaux without its becoming a very large proportion of their work. I do not believe that it can. I wonder what the Citizens' Advice Bureaux would feel about this if I were to be proved right.
My Lords, we come now logically to the second part of the main proposal, the proposal to set up a Consumer Council, and to the acceptance by the Government of it. I do not intend to weary the House by reading pages from the Molony Report. All details in connection with this point will be found on page 315, in recommendations 197 to 205. But I think your Lordships will agree that recommendation 197 is an effective summary—and I quote:
" We recommend the creation of a Consumer Council to ascertain and review the problems experienced by the consumer. and to devise and advance the means of resolving them."
This is amplified in paragraphs 849 and 850. But there are certain definite jobs that the Council is not to do. It is not to be entrusted with the preparation and publication of comparative test reports. I myself, in a booklet published in January, 1955, never envisaged the Council doing such testing itself; rather should it make use of the many first-class testing laboratories and testing
614
houses in operation to-day. But I did envisage it making the results known to a mass audience.
There is considerable anxiety on this point, especially among consumer organisations, and perhaps the Minister of State would help us there when he comes to reply. As we know, the Council is not to receive or deal with shoppers' complaints. We have discussed that already. Neither is it to be entrusted with criminal or civil enforcement action which has to be done by local authorities. On this point I find experienced opinion very divided. I do not know what the Minister has found. One school of thought is prepared to give it a trial, if it can be assured that the Consumer Council will be kept fully informed of the position throughout the country; in other words, what cases have been brought, and the results, and what further cases local authorities would have liked to bring. Others say that only the larger local authorities could cope and that many would have to be strengthened considerably for the job. Furthermore, they make a very relevant point: how will local authorities accept guidance and suggestion if this seems to conflict with their local autonomy?
The third point of view is that it seems essential for the Consumer Council or the Board of Trade to have a planned system of prosecutions so that local authorities could send the substance of cases to the centre for advice, if they so wished. For example, the R.T.S.A. has had to warn against taking cases in the past; and so, I am sure, has the Board of Trade. My last school of thought felt that this would be much better left with the local authorities, taking the viewpoint that nothing could be worse than leaving the initiative with the Board of Trade who had failed so lamentably here in the past. Noble Lords will perhaps be aware that in another place on Monday last this same criticism was voiced from all sides of the House, even from the Government side. I will not add to the Government's burden by giving figures, but as the Minister will probably know they offer much to be ashamed of until the tide of public opinion forced a change of attitude in 1955. I have the figures here, if the Minister wants them. But we should all welcome some further enlightenment from him when he speaks,

615
because this aspect is worrying many people.
Obviously, the success of this Council will depend primarily upon its Chairman, who will be expected to devote half his time to the business of the Council at a payment of £3,000 per annum. The full Council, it is suggested, should consist of 10 to 12 persons other than the Chairman, at a payment of £500 per annum. It is further suggested that an interest in trade, industry or advertising should not be a bar to appointment on the Council. Although there are conflicting opinions here, I think the proviso is right. I should, however, like to ask: does it apply to the Chairman; and, if it does, should it? It is not a case of doubting the impartiality of any Chairman. As your Lordships know in some matters that is not enough. It is not only a case of being impartial, but of being seen to be impartial. Perhaps the Minister would comment on this point, and also on the actual amount of time which the Government envisage members of the Council will be expected to give to the work. Other speakers will be commenting on the Consumer Council; so I will leave that matter for now, merely adding that I am quite convinced Chat the proposed budget is inadequate.
This brings me to a matter that has caused me some anxiety—what I would describe as the defeatist attitude of Molony, which keeps reappearing from time to time as one goes through the Report. I have felt that at times undue attention is given in the Report to cost. Obviously, the spending of the taxpayers' money is something to be considered most carefully, but in certain instances (and I will quote some of them) I should have thought that the gains would far outstrip the cost; and I should greatly welcome the opinion of the House, and of course the Minister, on this particular point. In so far as mass media are concerned, on page 283 (paragraph 860) the Report says, speaking of the Council:
"We would not permanently deny it the right to use other methods of disseminating consumer information, e.g. Press advertisements, television; but the initial grant we recommend is not intended to cover such expensive forms of publicity."
Why on earth not? I am sure that everyone in this House is in favour of competition. But let it be fair competition.
616
I would ask the Minister, what is the use of having competition if one of the contestants has one of his hands tied behind his back? I would warn him, here and now, that I am quite convinced that this Consumer Council will not have any chance of success unless it is able financially to compete on mass media with other trade organisations.
The second point that I want to raise under this defeatist aspect is the question of the Kitemark. As noble Lords will know, the Kitemark is the mark of the British Standards Institution denoting a certain standard. I have had a lot of hard things to say about the B.S.I. in the past, and I am sure that I shall in the future, but I think their Kitemark was useful. The Molony Committee apparently found it useful, too, because they say, at page 86, paragraph 273:
"Recognising as we do that British Standards are of value to the consumer, we would not argue against attempts to make them better known. But we consider that the cost of a major publicity campaign would be altogether disproportionate to the likely results in terms both of public reaction and of ultimate benefit to the consumer, and that any such effort would be a waste of public funds from which it is alone realistic to suppose that such an operation could be financed."
I do not accept that, and I would ask the Minister whether he would consider that paragraph 69 in this Report is regarded as defeatist in outlook by a great many people other than myself, who feel that it is far too ready to accept the views of people who do not like the Kitemark. That is an honestly held opinion.
My last point under this defeatist aspect is the question of consumer research—I am sorry to give your Lordships three quotations in a row; I have tried to avoid them. At page 287 (paragraph 873) there is a sentence which reads:
"We regard consumer research, in the sense of investigating the type and characteristics of goods needed by the consumer, as a consumer luxury and not an essential feature of a system of protection (except in regard to safety aspects)."
I, and many other people, reject this entirely. Surely,
"research into consumer needs, such as work study problems of the home and the housewife, is much more constructive than collecting consumer complaints after the wrong products have been manufactured. This is recognised in other countries."

617
I took that comment from a letter in The Times on August 4 last, but I feel with this whole question of consumer research that marketing should start with the customer's requirements and not with what is produced.
I would suggest with due diffidence to this House that today we are faced with the problem that market research has inevitably become involved with advertising, and advertising now not only notifies a given supply but stimulates and directs demand. So I think it is true to say that, at the present time, while a large part of our economic activity is obviously devoted to supplying known needs, a considerable and increasing part of it goes to ensure that we consume what industry finds it convenient to produce. Is this wrong? I do not think so. But it leads me to one definite conclusion—namely that basic research is urgently needed to supplement the limited objectives of existing consumer organisations, to research into the goods and services not on the market, into the consumer's image of the product, into the basis of his purchasing habits and decisions, into his real needs, and, finally, into choice itself.
Paragraph 873, from which I quoted the opening sentence, concludes in this way:
"We accept the possibility, however, that the Council might legitimately wish to commission research into the scope and impact of certain consumer problems, not presently identifiable."
This is not strong enough, and I trust the Government will make financial provision for such essentials as I have outlined here, and others in the same category.
Now I come to advertising, which noble Lords will find dealt with in the Report from page 238 onwards, covered by a mass of recommendations numbered 176 to 196. The Report says:
"Much disquiet was expressed to us about modern methods of advertising."
As your Lordships may know—I have said it before—I am no opponent of advertising. I think it has two main functions—to inform and to sell; and I think we would all agree that honest advertising and sensible consumer protection both have a part to play in making our economy more efficient and more dynamic. We shall probably not
618
get a better ruling upon advertising than that given recently by the United States Supreme Court:
"Advertising as a whole must not create a misleading impression even though every statement separately considered is literally truthful."
The Board of Trade has obviously become aware of public disquiet, just as Molony had. Mr. Niall Macpherson, then Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, speaking at the Advertising Association Conference in May last, said this:
"As people become more and more aware of advertising, they are becoming more and more conscious and critical of the content of advertising."
Mr. David Price, now in the same official position, speaking at the Fourth Conference of the Advertising Clubs, on September 29 last, said this:
"In the months that lie ahead, advertising practice is bound to come under close scrutiny in Parliament and elsewhere, and the judgment of the public on the value of what is done in advertising will, to a large extent, be influenced by decisions made by each of you as individuals."
Mr. Price went on to say that he was sure the conference would bear in mind how their decisions would affect not merely those directly concerned—clients, agents and the media—but, much more importantly, the public as consumers. That is Government opinion, my Lords.
What does the industry feel about it? Well, the industry has recognised the criticism, and the Advertising Association has set about improving the situation. The British Code of Advertising Practice has been revised; and for the moment I will leave this point with the comment that a great deal will depend on the way in which its provisions are interpreted and applied. There has been set up a special joint committee, to be called the Code of Advertising Practice Committee, charged with the duties of co-ordinating interpretation of the Code. This will, I hope, remove one considerable drawback, which is that at the moment some advertisements rejected by one medium are accepted by another. Molony continues, on page 258 of the Report:
"To ensure that the standard of judgment of the Code of Advertising Practice Committee and of the Copy Committees is properly maintained, there is also to be established a further body—to be known as 'The Advertising Standards Authority'…".

619
As your Lordships will know, this has now been established with Sir Arnold Plant as chairman. Most fair-minded people with whom I have discussed this matter are prepared to give this new setup a fair trial. Even those who have been most critical realise that the advertising industry has obviously recognised the criticism and done something about it. My Lords, have they done enough? Here I have one general comment and three specific details by way of practical illustration, because I think we have to be practical about this. The general comment is that the Advertising Association and its affiliates are prepared to meet the expenses of this Authority while allowing to it autonomy and authority. But I must ask, would this autonomy and authority not have been better exemplified if either the Code of Advertising Practice Committee or the Authority under Sir Arnold Plant had been invested with the right to initiate proposals for the amendment of the code? I have looked at this very carefully and can find no indication that they have this right. I would greatly appreciate the Minister's comment on this point.
My three specific details by way of practical illustration are these: switch selling, bait advertising, and one-day carpet sales. I do not know whether any of your Lordships has ever had people on your doorstep trying to sell goods to you by the technique of switch selling. If you have, I can only rest assured that your one criticism of me on this particular point to-day will be that I am being far too moderate. There is an excellent description of switch selling in paragraph 743 and Molony comments:
"Sometimes the advertised article is not even produced for inspection, 'stocks having been exhausted due to unprecedented demand …'."
There was certainly no defeatism about his feeling that there should be the most stringent switch selling provisions in the new Advertising Code when he said:
"We emphasise that this is no matter of taste or opinion but a case where newspaper columns are used to promote a most reprehensible trading practice."
On the question of bait advertising the prescribed reading for your Lordships is paragraph 746, but recommendation 190
620
of Molony reminds us that this is a very real problem, When it says:
"'Bait advertising' still continues and may be resumed on its earlier scale unless vigilance is maintained."
One-day carpet sales will be found in paragraph 753, but, commenting on this in recommendation 195, Molony says:
"The most objectionable feature of 'one-day carpet sales' should be kept in check by the recommended amendments of Merchandise Marks law."
My Lords, I return to the advertiser much more than to the Merchandise Marks Act, and for this reason. In the Report, as the Minister will know, we are told that established retailers are irritated to see the newspapers in which they regularly advertise carrying the necessary announcement of the impending sale. I should like to give your Lordships one example of this—I am conscious of the time, my Lords.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): It is perfectly all right.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I thank the noble Viscount. It is very good of him. For example, a carpet sale in East Anglia produced so many complaints that investigations were made. The newspaper concerned was not helpful. In regard to this advertisement I hope your Lordships will just listen to these four paints. The firm was not registered at the Business Names Registry; the address given in the advertisement was a semi-detached bungalow in a residential district; there was no visible indication that a business was being conducted from this house, and inquiries made disclosed that no person with the relevant name lived at this address. The hawker's licence number shown in the advertisement was granted to a person at a particular address. This last address was that of a turf accountant, who stated that a person of this name stayed for a short time in her caravan in the rear of the premises. I know—and I hope the Minister of State does not mind my acknowledging his nodding his head in assent—that this sort of thing cannot be allowed to continue. It is dishonest and a disgrace to advertising. To my way of thinking, on a practical basis, if the industry and its new Authority allow such practices to continue it will

621
mean that both are ineffective or insincere—which I do not believe. But the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
Now, my Lords, I come to the last section, and I thank you for your patience. On page 6 of the Report, paragraph 16, there is a statement which I regard as fundamental to this whole Report and to these proposals. I should like to read it:
"We further recognised that the welfare impulse of modern society requires intervention in aid of those least able to protect themselves as soon as the threat of exploitation becomes active."
These are the people we must help, those least able to protect themselves. In the following examples, three in number, but really coming under the two heads of "Guarantees" and "Hire purchase", the Report fails to do this. I think that both are of sufficient social importance for the Government to reconsider ultimate policy. In the section on "Guarantees", on page 131 onwards, the Report has this to say:
"Most important of all, the manufacturer may make himself the sole judge of whether or not there is a defect, and whether or not it was inherent. The effect is to deny the purchaser any enforceable claim to have a defect made good free of cost. For reasons such as these the purchaser's rights under the guarantee card are extremely restricted—although it might take a skilled interpreter of documents to demonstrate it—and if he gets reasonable satisfaction on complaining of a defect it is because the manufacturer chooses to be generous."
And this generosity, my Lords, is not universal.
The Report goes on to say, speaking of the customer:
" He has spent good money for an article which has broken down for reasons which, if divulged at all, are shrouded in such a technical fog that he can neither understand nor verify them, and which have arisen in the course of careful and reasonable use."
I am sure that all reasonable people will agree with this—I certainly do. You might well say, apart from anything else, "Then why bring it before this House?" I am bringing it before you, my Lords, because of the incredible recommendations following such statements. Recommendation 90 tells us:
"The difficulties and demerits of any system of control requiring registration or approval would outweigh the benefits."
622
Nothing could be more defeatist than that. Paragraph 91 says:
"In view of the potential value of guarantees for the consumer the proper course is for manufacturers to amend their terms so as to match legitimate consumer expectations."
My Lords, that is well-wishing of the worst quality, and worth exactly nothing. The arguments in favour of these recommendations I just do not accept. Nor do the people with whom I have discussed the matter; and I would emphasise that these are people with a great deal of experience. I would ask the Minister of State to understand that these people say, concerning paragraph 423, that they see no reason why there should not be a creation of a new criminal offence. They feel, and I agree with them, that this particular paragraph is very strongly a "trade" paragraph—and I put the word "trade" in inverted commas. They were also of the opinion that the Report is incorrect when it states that action might deter manufacturers from further issue of guarantees. On the contrary, my informants believe that reputable manufacturers would cooperate. I believe that all guarantees should be registered and approved by the Board of Trade.
Now, my Lords, on the matter of hire purchase there has been a strong plea for the simplification and compulsory standardisation of agreements, but the Molony Report, in recommendation 115, does not agree. It says:
"Neither simplified language, standard form agreements, nor larger print would markedly restrain the over-persuaded or impetuous hirer from undertaking imprudent obligations."
That statement, again, I do not accept, and neither does the informed opinion I prefer to accept. But there is in the Report a suggestion that there should be a 72-hour cooling-off period, allowing people who have signed hire-purchase agreements to give notice in writing within 72 hours of that—but only at a place other than a retail establishment.
I was the Member of Parliament for Coventry, South, for ten years, and during that time many complaints about hire purchase came my way. I think I should not be exaggerating if I said that practically every one came from the type of shop that you and I, and the reputable side of the hire purchase industry, would like to see swept out of business—the shoddy, flashy type of shop, where the

623
types of customer whom I have in mind are so terrified by the overbearing salesman that they have no chance. Not one of those shops, and not one of those complaints which I dealt with over ten years, would be covered by this recommendation. I could take your Lordships to shops here in the central part of London which are a disgrace to the community, and where these practices, these shocking hire-purchase practices, still go on. I would ask the Government to agree with the many people with whom I have discussed this matter, who say that the 72-hour delay should apply to all hire-purchase transactions, and who think that reputable shops would not dissent if the matter were put to them in the proper light.
Now, thanking the Lord President for his patience, I see that my notes say at the top, "In conclusion". My Lords, none of us here would deny that voluntary action is often greatly helped and expedited by the realisation that, should it not be forthcoming, something will be done. I refer your Lordships to the problem of women's wear and, while I speak only for the seven women Members of this House, your Lordships' families will echo what I am going to say. In sizing we have chaos, and even the Molony Report speaks of the "jungle" of O.S., 38 and size 18. I do not know your problems, my Lords, but I can tell you our problems when we go into a shop and ask for a size 16 or a size 18. Some hang on us like a sack, and others we cannot zip up, because we cannot get into them. All we have been asking—and we have asked it for many years—is that the same number should mean the same thing in all shops and for all manufacturers. As the Report declares:
"there is a sorry history of many years of trade argument and bickering which has prevented the evolution and adoption of this useful aid to the woman shopper".
It comes out with the recommendation that if agreement is not reached within twelve months action should be taken.
What do we get? We get the Drapers' Record (I have no interest in it, but perhaps three quotations over ten years are not too many) saying this on August 4 last:
624
"Molony Sizing Jolt Looks Like Doing The Trick. The sharp nudge on women's sizing given to the trade last week by the Molony Report will undoubtedly lead to a voluntary agreement within the next twelve months…all sections now seem determined to prove that it is not they who have delayed settlement on a reasonable nomenclature."
It just shows, my Lords, what can be done. With great trepidation I ask the Lord President of the Council if he will excuse what I have been told is dog-Latin, because I have none better, but in fact we are no longer having the caveat emptor! of the 'fifties, but the caveat vendor! of the 'sixties.—Let the seller beware!
I apologise for the length of time I have taken. Your Lordships may find it hard to believe, but I have tried to condense my remarks as much as possible. However, it seemed important that basic points should be discussed in some detail before the Government announced definite steps in procedure, especially where these are recognised unequivocally to be the responsibility of Government. My Lords, I have an axe to grind to-day, one in which I hope most people in this House on all sides will share, the axe of the consumer and reputable industry, both of which have much to gain from what we are discussing to-day. I beg to move for Papers.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think this is the first time I have heard the noble Lady from the Dispatch Box, and perhaps she will, therefore, allow me to take the opportunity to do what I am about to do—to congratulate her on what was, at any rate so far as I remember, her first appearance there, and to say that the House very greatly enjoyed her well arranged and well informed speech. However, as we have now reached what the advertisers call a natural break in the programme, I feel that this should be the moment that I, by arrangement, move that the debate be now adjourned, in order, first of all, to allow my noble friend to make a statement, and, thereafter, to allow the House to discuss the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

TREATY OF COMMERCE, ESTAB LISHMENT AND NAVIGATION WITH JAPAN
3.38 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has this afternoon made a statement in another place about the Treaty of Commerce, Establishment and Navigation between the United Kingdom and Japan. This is the statement in my right honourable friend's own words:
"The Treaty was signed this morning. Copies of the text are available to the House, together with a Command Paper summarising the history of the negotiations and explaining the effect of the Treaty and associated arrangements.
"The essence of this Treaty is the exchange of most-favoured-nation rights and, in some cases, national rights between the two countries as regards the treatment of persons, companies, shipping and goods. Safeguards against disruptive competition are provided in the associated arrangements. The safeguards are: first, continued control of a number of specially sensitive items by export restriction in Japan or import restriction in the United Kingdom: and, second, a general safeguard for use in the event of disruptive competition developing in any sector of trade. When the Treaty comes into force, Britain will cease to invoke Article XXXV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, thereby entering into relations with Japan under the General Agreement.
"Since the rapid expansion of Japan's economy was first accompanied, some two years ago, by real progress in the liberalisation of her import trade, the conclusion of a Treaty on these lines has been a major objective of Government policy.
"To enable our exporters to reap the full benefits of the expanding market it was necessary to obtain guarantees that our trade would be as well treated as that of countries, such as Germany and the United States, who were in G.A.T.T. relations with Japan; and to provide a normal and settled basis of commercial relations
626
for trade between the two countries to replace the annually negotiated trade arrangements. The need for a Treaty has been equally recognised by representatives of industrial opinion with first-hand knowledge of developments in Japan.
"The rate of expansion of the Japanese economy in the last few years has far exceeded that of other industrial free-enterprise countries. Our exports to Japan have increased by about two-thirds in the last two years. Liberalisation of imports by Japan goes steadily forward. With relations now on a sound basis, I believe that our exports to Japan will continue to grow and there should be increasing opportunities for the profitable exchange of know-how between the two countries.
"Some sections of industry have, I know, been doubtful whether the general safeguard is an effective protection. I firmly believe that their fears are exaggerated. Under this safeguard we may consult the Japanese Government if there is an increase in imports of any product under conditions which cause or threaten serious injury to our manufacturers. In an emergency we can impose import restrictions at any time after consultation has begun, retaining them as long as they are needed. But we may hope that the necessity for this will rarely, if ever, arise, since it is reasonable to expect that the Japanese Government will readily co-operate with us to avoid a situation in which we would be compelled to reintroduce restrictions on Japanese trade.
"The Treaty is likely to be ratified and come into force in April or May of next year. The current trade arrangement has been renewed to cover the interval. During this period there will be some relaxations on our side, not affecting textile goods. Relaxations on the Japanese side will offer substantially increased opportunities to our exporters of wool cloth, whisky, cars and machine tools."
My Lords, that is the statement.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister for giving us this statement. I understand that the actual

627
terms of the Treaty will be laid on the Table and that we shall have a limited period in which we can raise certain questions. I note the safeguards referred to in the statement, and I just wonder whether the noble Lord can tell me in advance if, in cases of commodities which are already restricted by voluntary agreement in the case of Hong Kong, India and Pakistan, the same conditions will apply from the beginning of this Treaty in respect of Japan.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I just add that I think this agreement will be welcomed by all the House, but that I would call it a rather nervous and tentative Treaty? On the other hand, we are glad to see that, after all these years, the Government are reducing tariffs and abandoning protection, and aiming towards the target of free trade. As regards the noble Viscount's question on what he calls the voluntary restriction of commodities from Hong Kong, I rather trust the same principles will not be applied in this case.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am not sure that I can answer the noble Viscount. As I understand it, the arrangements under this Treaty are temporary arrangements, and eventually we shall come into full G.A.T.T. relationship with Japan. The Treaty will lie for 21 days, I think, and the details of the safeguards will be attached to it and will be able to be seen. I do not think I can quite answer offhand the point put by the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I should have thought that that information would have been readily available to the Minister from his Department. You know what the actual arrangements are at present in respect of Hong Kong, and how much they have been debated, from one side or another, by manufacturers in this country. I should have thought we ought to be able to know straight away. We will examine the facts themselves when the Paper is laid, but we ought to have been able to know this afternoon on this one vital point.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I myself felt a certain amount of difficulty
628
as to the exact point which the noble Viscount was seeking to put to my noble friend, and I know he felt under the same difficulty. For that reason, I hope the noble Viscount will be able to put it down on the Paper so as to give him a chance of considering it. On a matter of this kind it is very much more important to be accurate than it is to be quick in one's answers. I would therefore ask the noble Viscount to bear with us and to toll us precisely what it is he has in mind, in order that we may be quite sure to give a right answer.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I wonder if I might ask whether there is in this Treaty a ratification clause. Is it subject to ratification?
LORD DERWENT: Yes, it is; and, as I said, it is likely to be ratified next April or May.
LORD KILLEARN: That bears on the point which the noble Viscount made.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I had precisely the same point in mind as the noble Viscount opposite. Perhaps I can explain it to my noble friend. Hong Kong, India and Pakistan are at the moment voluntarily restricting their exports of cloth, and made-up garments to some extent, to this country to avoid ruining the Lancashire industry. Is the Japanese cotton industry going to be allowed, from the beginning, to export cotton goods freely to this country, or is there going to be some corresponding restriction on them?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think that inevitably answers itself, if arrangements are voluntary in one case and are regulated by what my noble friend has just said in another. I should think that the correct course would be to read carefully what my noble friend has said, and to compare it with the nature of the voluntary arrangements; but they are clearly not quite in pari materia.
LORD REA: My Lords, whilst this point is, of course, important to manufacturers, I hope the Government will remember that the consumer is much more important than any manufacturer.

THE VASSALL CASE TRIBUNAL
3.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM rose to move to resolve, That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., the circumstances in which offences under the Official Secrets Acts were committed by William John Christopher Vassall, and in particular:

(1) The allegations made that the presence of another spy inside the Admiralty was known to the First Lord and his Service chiefs after the Portland case eighteen months ago;

(2) any other allegations which have been or may be brought to their attention, reflecting similarly on the honour and integrity of persons who, as Ministers, naval officers and civil servants, were concerned in the case;

(3) any breaches of security arrangements which took place; and

(4) any neglect of duty by persons directly or indirectly responsible for Vassall's employment and conduct, and for his being treated as suitable for employment on secret work.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I now rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Your Lordships will, I think, have observed that the terms of reference contained in this Motion are apt to cover both the original terms of reference submitted to the three civil servants and certain other matters with which I will deal in more detail in due course. My Lords, in view of these terms of reference the House will wish to know—and I think probably at an early stage in my remarks will wish to know—the proposed composition of the Tribunal. This is not an easy matter, as there are now two broad types of question which are closely interlocked. The original subject-matter of the inquiry for the three civil servants is, at least in my judgment, and perhaps in that of the House, just as important as it ever was, but it cannot now be separated from the more sensational matter, which personally I regret but which has since supervened through, I think, no fault of our own.
The Tribunal has therefore got to be such as is competent to deal, both with
630
the limited and highly technical subject-matter of security and with the broader inquiry which has now become necessary—and, quite obviously, this makes the choice of personnel both crucial and, I would say, difficult. Happily, we think we have succeeded. If the House passes the Motion, the new Tribunal will take over from the civil servants and also will embark upon the broader terms of reference. Two of the members have special experience and qualifications in addition to their legal qualifications: the remaining member has previous experience of a Tribunal of this type. My Lords, his special combination of qualifications and experience render, I would have thought, the noble Viscount, Lord Radcliffe, almost an inevitable Chairman. I am happy to say that he has agreed to act; and that Mr. Justice Barry and Sir Edward Milner Holland would also be willing, as they are in my judgment well qualified, to serve.
My Lords, since I do not anticipate that the Motion will be opposed, I could, of course, pass this moment off with a purely formal speech. Since, however, there has been a change in Government policy, and since there are certain matters upon which both I, as an individual, and my colleagues in the Government feel strongly, I feel that Parliament is entitled to an account of the reasons which have led us to our change of view, and I know that my right honourable friend in another place is taking the same view on the parallel Motion.
Your Lordships will not require to be told that this Motion—in identical terms with that in another place—constitutes the constitutional mechanism whereby is set up a Tribunal of Inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. My Lords, this is, in my judgment, a formidable engine of (inquiry, with compulsory powers of inquisition, and, in my opinion, it should be set up very sparingly. It is within my recollection that on every occasion I can remember when it has been set up in my professional career or in my public life—for example, the "Thomas" Budget leak, the Lynskey Tribunal, the Parker Bank Rate Inquiry, and the Caithness Police Inquiry—the Press has, on every one of these occasions, rightly commented on the inquisitorial nature of the procedure

631
and the hardship endured by witnesses and others submitted, without a charge being made, to searching examination on oath about their affairs and transactions originally, ordinarily and properly intended to remain private. I notice—I could not help noticing—that the same point was taken by Mr. Silverman in another place yesterday.
I was close enough to the centre of events—the House will forgive me—in the Bank Rate Inquiry to know that bitter feelings were aroused in persons wholly innocent of any offence who were perfectly properly submitted to impartial comment and examination by the then Attorney-General or by the members of the Tribunal itself. We should not overlook the fact that this is a formidable instrument of Government, and I should not like it to be thought that we have invoked it lightly here.
Your Lordships will be aware that the Act enables the Tribunal in its own discretion to hold the whole or any part of its hearings in private. It may be—it is not for me to say, but it may be—that the Tribunal here may decide to avail themselves to some extent at least, of this right. If so, the criterion in doing so would be, under the terms of the Statute, the public interest—and only the public interest—and not the feelings of any parties who may be interested.
Of course, if it were and to the extent that it were held in private some of the disadvantages to which I have referred would be overcome. But other and not less serious dangers would surely be incurred. A private inquisition of this kind would be—almost literally—a Star Chamber, with the solitary though vital difference that it has no powers of punishment and that its Report will be public in so far as it affects the integrity and honour of individuals. I should not like the House to think that I move this Resolution without a measure of reluctance. Yet I do so without doubting that in recommending it the Government have taken the right course.
My Lords, though we are at peace in matters of security we live in the penumbra of a ruthless and diabolical war, the like of which has scarcely been seen in Europe since the time of the
632
Borgias. Of this war only the occasional episodes seem to be made public—or even known—outside a restricted circle. A Soviet agent defects and tells a sensational tale of murder by a cyanide pistol; an air pilot tens of miles above the earth is shot down by a device of exquisite sophistication and ingenuity; a prominent diplomat forgets his loyalty to his country; a scientist changes sides and flees abroad; vulnerable men are enticed into a net of blackmail by their sexual perversions; corrupt men are bribed to betray their country for money. In the main, however, the battle is fought in the dark. Neither side admits to its successes. Both are occasionally compelled to admit their failures. The whole story is a grim and horrible commentary on the predicament of the human family.
On the free side of the Iron Curtain we are faced with a terrible dilemma. In public life we must all be security minded, guard our own tongues, examine our own characters for weaknesses which are never wholly private but may make us vulnerable, be careful of our documents, ensure that security procedures are observed and that those procedures in operation are the right procedures for the purpose.
But it is important to emphasise that the nature of these security procedures is itself a highly professional job. This is no world for the amateur spy-catcher to blunder about in. Moreover, there is another reason why it should be kept professional. My Lords, we must be on our guard against McCarthyism. At the beginning of the First World War two great public servants, Prince Louis of Battenberg and the late Lord Haldane—innocent, loyal, and great patriots both—were hounded from public office by a combination of gutter journalism, second-rate politics and mass hysteria, and the general persecution of less prominent persons was thereby encouraged. My Lords, let us all resolve that this shall not be allowed to happen again.
One of the greatest weapons we hold against our enemies is the mutual confidence and trust of the members, one with another, of a free society. Let us keep fast bold of it or we lose the war—for that is what it is—by losing both what makes the war worth fighting and the best means of winning it.

633
My Lords, when the Vassall case emerged as the second serious security case within the Admiralty in recent months, and my noble friend made what I thought was his honourable and manly acceptance in this House of his departmental responsibility—though by far the worst breaches of security were before his term of office—(and after the resumption by Vassall of spying activities, one gratifying feature was the speed with which he was caught). I was myself hopeful that the matter would be left at that stage to a professional inquiry by senior civil servants. But whereas that inquiry was admirably suited in my judgment to investigate breaches of security by whomsoever committed, it would equally, in my opinion, not be suited to imputations affecting the honour or personal conduct either of Ministers or senior officials or naval officers.
No sooner had my noble friend made his statement in your Lordships' House than an announcement was made by a particular newspaper and by a Member of another place of the existence of letters indicating, as it was said, a degree of Ministerial responsibility which went far beyond the ordinary business of a Minister in charge of a Department. My Lords, it is not perhaps proper for me to inquire how those letters came into the possession either of the newspaper or of the Member, but as a man of the world I inferred—and no doubt I was not alone in that inference—that the deliberate insinuation was being made that the letters to Vassall, a known pervert, would be found to contain matters of improper familiarity or even eroticism.
I have no doubt whatever that it then became immediately imperative that those letters should be published, and I am myself delighted that they were published. It is not for me now to comment upon them. Your Lordships will have read them, and it is for your Lordships to say if you agree with Sir Charles Cunningham and his colleagues that they:
"do not in themselves appear to contain any implication of a relationship constituting a security risk"
or whether either they or any other of the known facts justified the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, in saying in your Lordships' House on October 31
634
[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 244 (No. 2), cols. 32–3]:
"the former Civil Lord …seemed to me to have social relationships with a minor official of the Admiralty which were quite inappropriate."
At all events, Mr. Galbraith found life in office had been made intolerable for him and he resigned. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who has the public interest to consider, thought it right—and since he has been criticised, I should like to say that I agree with him—to accept the resignation. Whether, however, the nation or Parliament or the Opposition or the Press or his colleagues in the Government can feel particularly proud of the chain of events which has led to the interruption of an honourable and useful public career is something which, I think, we must leave until the result of the present Motion is known.
However that may be, in my own innocence, I had hoped that that would be the end of this side of the matter. Instead of this, with the generous comment "Exit, One Chump", the newspaper, which had presumably paid the traitor and criminal Vassall in hard cash for Mr. Galbraith's letters—rumour put the figure at something approaching £7,000—and shown them to its paid political or industrial adviser—and other newspapers went on with the attack. Incidentally, can I be the only one who deplores the practice of the Sunday Press of buying the confessions of criminals and thus, as it seems to me, perverting the public morals of the nation? And, if the sum mentioned is anything like right, one must infer either that the Russians got Vassall at half price or that the newspaper thought that his value was doubled as the result of his infamy. One may be pardoned for trembling for the future of this country when popular newspapers sink to such depths of degradation as this.
Later, on November 8, there was an article in another paper under the heading: "Don't forget they knew for eighteen months that there was a spy around". This, at any rate, I thought, clearly insinuated that not merely high and honourable officials, but perhaps even my noble friend himself, had stood by for eighteen months with knowledge about the traitor in their possession and

635
had failed to inform the proper authorities or the Prime Minister—perhaps even had conspired with one another to suppress the truth. It is not for me to say whether such allegations would entitle the officer concerned or my noble friend to institute proceedings. What is material to this Motion is that it is clear that this allegation goes far beyond the competence of any committee of civil servants. The allegation was repeated in an aggravated form in the same newspaper the following day and reappeared again under various guises in the Sunday Press.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should like you to name them.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am informed that the Thursday article was based on a statement that a document was found in the house of Mr. Kröger, who was concerned in the Portland case, and this document somehow connected the Vassall case with the Portland case. This statement, according to the information in the possession of the Government, is incorrect. No doubt the Tribunal, if set up, will wish to inquire whether the newspaper concerned is prepared to support its allegation and with what evidence.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, may I ask the Lord President, if he is going to castigate the Sunday Press, whether he would state to which journal he refers? He is protected by privilege for that very purpose and it is only fair not to lump all the papers together.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think that if this is to be submitted to the Tribunal, the Tribunal will know what to say about what newspapers. But this is not the end and it is not the worst. On Friday night, a report came into the hands of the Government, perfectly properly, that an even uglier insinuation was being circulated in private. This was that the arrest of Vassall had been made on the date it was in order to forestall his escape with Mr. Galbraith, either for homosexual purposes or to defect behind the Iron Curtain. So horrible is this suggestion that I should like to give it more or
636
less as my right honourable friend told it to me. What he told me was that on Friday morning a new sitaution had developed.
My right honourable friend the Patronage Secretary came to the Prime Minister early on Friday morning and told him this story, which I will describe in words as simple as I can. An honourable Member of the other House, acting in accordance with his public duty, had been to see the Patronage Secretary late on Thursday night with the following information. He had been dining that night with the political editor of a national newspaper. In the course of the dinner, this gentleman said that one of his staff had been told by a member either of the police or of the security service—he was not sure which—that had Vassall not been arrested on September 12, it had been his intention to join Mr. Galbraith in Italy and that Vassall then intended, in the words of the reporter of this story, to "do a Pontecorvo", with the clear implication that my honourable friend intended to defect to Russia and put his knowledge and information at the disposal of the Communists. It was also said that my honourable friend was believed to have spent holidays abroad with Vassall before. Again, I would only say that, according to the information of the Government, and we have sought to find the truth, this is not correct in any particular.
The Prime Minister was in this difficulty. This information had been brought to him. He was not sure whether it had been brought to him in good faith or as a trap, and he did not think that he could leave the matter there—and I do not think that he could. Things like this cannot be put about in private. Unfortunately, we came to know that this story in various forms and guises was being put about in private not only by the source which I have described but quite widely during the course of Friday. However preposterous, however wicked and however vile such a suggestion may be, if it comes to be passed about in the same kind of the way as the story about my honourable friend's letters passed about earlier last week, could anyone let it rest?
It was in these circumstances that my right honourable friend the Prime

637
Minister read the Press later that morning and this Press contained the aggravated form of the Thursday article, to which I have already referred. It said:
"The First Lord's position is now very delicate. Yesterday on a sudden summons, he hurried across to Admiralty House to see Mr. Macmillan.
"The reason: the revelation by Percy Hoskins in yesterday's Daily Express that the presence of another spy inside the Admiralty was known to the First Lord and his Service chiefs when the Portland ring was exposed 18 months ago.
"Mr. Macmillan wanted to know from Lord Carrington why he had not been warned of this startling fact."
What does this report mean? One possible construction, at least, is that it means that my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, aided and abetted by the Service chiefs, by whom I understand could only be meant the other members of the Board and the Permanent Secretary, had conspired together to conceal, during eighteen months since the Portland case their knowledge of the existence of another spy in the Admiralty. I have already said that the statement upon which this allegation is founded is, according to the information in my possession, not correct. Nevertheless, upon this foundation has been built the allegation that my noble friend the First Lord and the Board of Admiralty and perhaps other senior civil servants have concealed the truth and in doing so have committed an act which can be described only as appalling disloyalty to the Service over which they preside and, I would add, to their country.
Now, this may be true—it may be true. It may be that my noble friend, after distinguished and gallant service as an infantry officer in the war, after being High Commissioner for Australia and serving in the Government as First Lord of the Admiralty for three years, has in effect betrayed his trust. But surely such an allegation cannot be allowed to rest uninvestigated? My noble friend must be entitled to have his character cleared if he is innocent and so are the other members of the Board of Admiralty, who it seems to me have been traduced in the same way.
My Lords, it is for these reasons that the Government now come before Parliament with this Motion. I feel sure that,
638
with a view to investigating a security problem in the technical sense, the Committee of civil servants would have served us best, even though they might, in delivering their report, have cast aspersions on Ministers in their ordinary work of responsibility as departmental chiefs. But allegations like these are something altogether different, at least, in my submission. There is only one remedy for this, and that is a thorough investigation under the power of oath and subpœna; and for this purpose, at any rate, an inquiry by the civil servants is not enough. Their work must cease. We must have the Tribunal to find the truth, to explode calumny, if it be calumny; to convict the guilty, and to acquit the innocent. Painful as it is, this is what we must do.
The charges that have been made must be thrashed out under the full sanction and majesty of the law. They must be found to be true or false, and the public confidence must be restored either by the conviction of guilty men of by public proof that those who pose as the protectors of the public have been guilty without cause of trying to destroy the reputation of a fellow citizen. My Lords, this a question which, in my submission, can only be tried by a Tribunal set up under the Act of Parliament with power to put witnesses on oath, under the sanction of the law of perjury if they tell lies; a Tribunal at which the witnesses may be protected by counsel, and the evidence of accusers tested by cross-examination.
Those, my Lords, are the reasons which have led the Government to change their mind and to place this Motion upon the Order Paper. Of course one must learn in public life to ignore much that is said against one. If one were to answer every falsehood that was made one would spend one's whole lifetime in repudiation. Many things are best put aside, or overlooked, and many criticisms find their own level. But this, at least in my judgment, is not a case for that. I remember very well over the bank rate case that there was likewise a long period of vague innuendo, which could not be pinned down to any precise point. For as long as that persisted we ignored it. But finally a specific allegation in that case was made against my noble friend Lord Poole, and the very next day we asked the House to set up

639
a Tribunal in the matter. In my opinion in that case many who were responsible for that allegation got off much more easily than they deserved. But I think now, whatever may be the case, the time has come for men of propriety and decency not to tolerate the growth of McCarthyism in our midst.
At any rate, let the judgment be made. If public servants are guilty of what it is said they are guilty of, in the old days they might have faced a trial for their lives; and even to-day they could never again lift up their heads amongst their fellows. But if those who have accused them have done so falsely or recklessly, or out of malice, or out of simply a desire for the commercial exploitation of sensationalism, then I would say that a formal condemnation by society, through the mouth of its appointed commissioners, and possibly through Parliament itself, is the proper remedy. My Lords, I ask the House to pass this Motion, the only machinery now open to us for the defence of innocent men, if they be innocent, or, for their condemnation if they be guilty. In any event, my Lords, let us discover the truth.
Moved, to resolve, That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., the circumstances in which offences under the Official Secrets Acts were committed by William John Christopher Vassall, and in particular:

(1) the allegations made that the presence of another spy inside the Admiralty was known to the First Lord and his Service chiefs after the Portland case eighteen months ago;

(2) any other allegations which have been or may be brought to their attention, reflecting similarly on the honour and integrity of persons who, as Ministers, naval officers and civil servants, were concerned in the case;

(3) any breaches of security arrangements which took place; and

(4) any neglect of duty by persons directly or indirectly responsible for Vassall's employment and conduct, and for his being treated as suitable for employment on secret work.—(Viscount Hailsham.)

4.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, we have listened to a speech which was remarkable for a number of different things. I am not myself aware of any comment having been made from this side of your Lordships' House in the course of the last two or three weeks which could have been in any way detrimental to the persons who have been referred to—not even the quotation made against my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth put in his speech to-day by the noble and learned Viscount who leads the House.
I must say that I think the Government have had considerable difficulty to contend with to undo their constant refusal on more than one occasion to appoint a more effective tribunal to inquire into the particular case than was afforded by a Committee of three civil servants. While I am quite certain that the course now proposed, to have a Tribunal, composed as it is of the members whose names were given to your Lordships' House by the Leader of the House, with all the powers under the Tribunals Act, is the right thing to do, I am rather concerned about the detailed nature of the speech which has been made by the Leader of the House, and the references which have been produced, with, at the end of all, the kind of stuff which he has given—some of it from tittle-tattle—to the public at large. And then for him to feel that it was quite unholy for him to name anybody in the shape of an editor, or an actual newspaper against which the charges are to be brought, because there is a Tribunal to be set up, leaves us in a very, very doubtful state of mind as to what are the complete motives of the Government.
The position, as I see it, is this. I see it from the point of view of one who was a Service Minister for more than twelve years, of which almost nine years were spent as First Lord of the Admiralty. I am quite certain that there is nobody in this House more jealous than I am of the reputation of the First Lord and the Board of Admiralty or of the actual safety conditions required for that great Senior Service. Therefore, perhaps I can make one or two comments upon the matter.
I am quite certain of this: that if the First Lord of the Admiralty had had any

641
information further than he was able to give to the House at the time the matter was raised here he would have given it. I have watched his career in this House for a good many years now, and I have found nothing in his personal aspect of controlling business and doing public service that is not to be commended. I want to make that perfectly clear. I said at the time that he addressed your Lordships that I thought he was doing quite the right thing in accepting departmental responsibility for anything which might be proved to have gone wrong under his leadership; I said then that he was to be congratulated on having made a public statement, and I say it again. I shall read the noble and learned Viscount's speech very closely, but as I feel at present, having listened especially to the middle part of it, I should feel happier about the Tribunal if the noble and learned Viscount had not said so much as if he were opening the case before the Tribunal. That was most extraordinary to me.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: It is sub judice.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: These are matters which, as my noble friend behind me reminds me, will in a day or two be sub judice. I hope the noble and learned Viscount, for whose ability I have great respect, when he has read his speech again and examined it, in the light of what are going to be the duties of this Tribunal and what are the full extent of the powers they will exercise, may feel that he could have left unsaid some of the things he said this afternoon and left it to the judgment of your Lordships' House on the simple question as to whether this was the right course—namely, to have a much more authoritative and powerful Inquiry into the whole question of the espionage in this place and what has arisen from it. I think that all noble Lords would have accepted that practically without question or comment, if it were not for the type of speech we have listened to.
LORD REA: My Lords, apart from endorsing the noble Viscount's tribute to the First Lord of the Admiralty, whom I hope I may claim as a friend of some standing, and in whose integrity I have
642
complete faith, I personally think it quite out of place for me to add any further words from these Benches, which, after all, are a Party political forum. The best thing about this matter to me is that it is going sub judice from to-day, and I hope that when the matter is resolved there will be no sort of Party gain or loss in any sort of way from a political point of view, and that the matter will be completely finished.
4.20 p.m.
LORD POOLE: My Lords, on Monday, December 2, 1957, the Tribunal to inquire into allegations that information about the raising of the bank rate was improperly disclosed, opened its proceedings. As I was the subject of that inquiry, I hope that your Lordships will allow me to-day to make certain observations about the proceedings of such tribunals which I hope will be helpful, and which I hope will commend themselves objectively to all sides of the House. Whether I was or was not the accused on that occasion is a matter of opinion, but it suffices to say that The Times, in its leading article after the tribunal had reported, headed its leader, "Not Guilty".
I know nothing, except the little I have read, about the circumstances leading the Government to institute this new inquiry, except what we have heard from the Leader of the House to-day. I am quite ready to accept that it is necessary and desirable that this inquiry should take place. In the case of the bank rate tribunal, I went to the Prime Minister myself, after months of the sort of innuendo which I understand has taken place now, and felt it necessary to ask him to institute proceedings. He was good enough to accept my wish and put the necessary Resolution to Parliament. I say that anybody who does that, either as an individual or as a leader of a political Party, bears a very heavy weight of responsibility and certainly one from which I am never likely to be wholly free. So I will hope that no one—and I put this to the noble Viscount—will criticise the Government for any delay in coming to the decision to institute a tribunal. As my noble friend the Leader of the House has said, this is a most dangerous and severe instrument of Government, and it offends in almost every respect the normal tenets and understandings of British justice.

643
I would concede at once that such inquiries may become necessary from time to time. It is necessary for public life in this country to be upheld, and the position of individuals has always been secondary to that. But let no one underestimate the far-reaching and searching effects of such a tribunal. In case there should be any misunderstanding, I wish to say at once that I have never, either then or since, allowed myself to doubt the sincerity of those whose actions or words may have been the cause of my asking the Prime Minister for such a Tribunal. I feel that this is extremely important in public life. They did, I am sure, what they thought was right. I have no recriminations, and I wish to make none. I do, however, wish to make certain suggestions for changes in the procedure, to which I hope the Government will give very careful consideration indeed, and which I believe would make the proceedings rather more acceptable to the general public as a whole. After each of these tribunals almost every newspaper and almost every responsible politician says, "You must never have anything quite like that again"—and yet nothing is done, and I am very much concerned that the procedure should be the same.
My first proposal is that the Attorney General in his opening statement, and in his examination of witnesses, will quite rightly deploy the "charges", if that is the right word, and will refer to the evidence of rumours. As in theory no one is charged with anything, then no one has the immediate right of reply. It may be that at the end of the tribunal, many weeks later, many of the charges will be proved unfounded and many of the rumours shown to be ridiculous or groundless. I would urge them, subject to the permission of the members of the tribunal, that any person involved must be allowed to make a statement of (his case either himself or through his counsel, immediately after the Attorney General so that he can immediately refute—and no doubt the Press will refute if necessary—many of the loose allegations that are made.
It really is not enough to say that someone should be subjected to the present procedure when there is no charge. I am a little concerned at the
644
suggestion that it is sub judice. I seek advice. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding was that there was no such thing. There are no rules of evidence, and no rules of procedure. I do not think the witnesses—if that is the right word for them—have any protection at all. I think it right that they should have a statement made on their behalf as early in the proceedings as possible. It is also right that, if a tribunal is going to be set up—and here again I take issue with the noble Viscount—whatever the terms of reference are, it must have complete freedom to get any information from anybody who it thinks can lead it to come to a proper conclusion. This means that, whatever the terms of reference are, any witness can be called before it; every aspect of his private life can be examined. Indeed, Mr. Charles Russell—Lord Justice Russell, as he now is—who was my counsel at the time, at the end of the Tribunal, at page 288 of the proceedings, called attention to the fact that, whereas few witnesses had been called and few documents produced, every single conversation I had had for many weeks, every business transaction in which I had been involved, every social engagement at which I had been, had been investigated and the documents taken and, where necessary, people were seen. The President of the Tribunal immediately afterwards thanked him for calling attention to that.
This is my point. This is right, but in almost every tribunal that has taken place there has been at some time some political pressure. Members of another place have either made statements in another place or have received documents, as I understand it is suggested has been done for a newspaper or newspapers. Leaders of the political Parties have met to discuss what action should be taken. Leaders of the Opposition meet, and then go to the Leaders of the Government to present prima facie evidence which they think it their duty to disclose. I suggest, in all fairness to the ordinary people, that nothing that is said in Parliament or given to Members of Parliament should be subject to Parliamentary privilege; that if, in fact, Leaders of a political Party, whichever Party it is, feel it their duty to go and formally disclose rumours or evidence which they think they have received, then

645
that information should be available to the tribunal just as much as information regarding the private lives of many hundreds of people who are concerned. I would strongly urge that something should be done in this case to see how this point can be met.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may I say that, from the way the noble Lord's speech opened, it seems that he was at variance with myself on certain points. I must make it quite clear that I have received information from nobody, and I have not discussed it with anybody on any occasion, either in this House or outside.
LORD POOLE: May I please apologise to the noble Viscount. I have not completely made myself clear. I thought the noble Viscount said that he considered that the terms of reference of the Tribunal as put forward by my noble friend were too wide.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: No, not at all.
LORD POOLE: I therefore withdraw. I am not in fact trying to refer either to the Tribunal in which I was involved or the present one; I am trying to make an objective statement. It is known that on many occasions in the past leaders of political Parties have met to discuss these things. I am not suggesting that either the noble Lord, anyone on the Government Bench or on any other Bench have done so this time. But there have been discussions, I understand, this time and I say that these should be made public so that the evidence of the people who are subjected to this inquisition, which is what it is, the whole evidence and the whole story, is disclosed. I am bound to say that I have very real feelings for wishing this were so.
The third and last point I wish to make is on the question of costs. We are told constantly that no one is accused. The Inquiry is not a legal proceeding and as a result of that no one can recover any part of the heavy costs involved. Is it really right that someone against whom vague charges, if that is the word, or vague suggestions of impropriety are made should be subjected to examination by a Tribunal of this sort without having to assist him all the help from learned counsel, juniors and solicitors?
646
These Tribunals go on for many days; there are days of preparation beforehand and seventeen, eighteen or twenty days of proceedings. The costs are very heavy indeed, and I think it quite wrong that some people can afford to ask for Tribunals and get what (help they need and others cannot. If the Government impose these Tribunals on people, I think the Government have a duty to defray the costs, whether the people are innocent or whether they are not. I very much hope that these three points will be looked into.
My Lords, these Tribunals are very serious matters. I cannot believe that anybody in public life can do anything but regret and deplore them. I would only end up by saying what I said in the beginning: that those who demand them and the Government who are prepared to ask Parliament to set one up carry a very heavy load of responsibility. I am grateful to your Lordships for allowing me to give these observations, as I think I have had some experience which may help to make the procedure more acceptable.
4.34 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, we all understand, not entirely without sympathy, the personal feelings that the noble Lord, Lord Poole, has in the light of his own experience in connection with an earlier Tribunal of Inquiry. I understand that and I am not brutally unsympathetic about it. On the other hand, the possibility of a Tribunal of Inquiry under the Tribunal of Inquiries Act exists, and, as I understand it, it exists because in some cases the ordinary course of inquiry by a departmental committee, let alone a committee of civil servants, is not adequate to the situation, or because ordinary proceedings in the courts of law would not be suitable or adequate to the situation. It was in order that there could be a more thorough inquiry, and an inquiry of a certain type, that the Tribunal of Inquiries Act was passed. The noble Lord who has just sat down has come pretty near to challenging the right to use a Tribunal of Inquiry at all—pretty near to it.
LORD POOLE: My Lords, that is not what I said or, indeed, if I said it, it was not what I meant. What I meant

647
was that it ought only to be very carefully thought about. I specifically said that I thought it was essential to have the power to bring in a tribunal instrument of this kind. I also said that I thought the personal feelings of the individual were quite secondary to the national interest.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, if I have misrepresented the noble Lord I withdraw, but I thought that the purport of his speech was that this was an inappropriate instrument in this case. That is what I thought. I have a right to think what I think. But there it is. I quite agree, if that is what the noble Lord meant, that this is an instrument which should be used only in appropriate and sufficiently serious cases, because it is a heavy-handed instrument and good thought must be given before it is utilised.
I rise to support the Motion which has been moved by the noble and learned Viscount, the Leader of the House, and in supporting the Motion which he has moved I cannot support the speech which he has made. I thought it was a wrong type of speech, when a Minister is moving that a Tribunal of a judicial character be set up for the purpose of making inquiries, for him to make a speech which almost completely prejudges the issues which are to be gone into by the Tribunal. I think that was quite wrong and I am surprised that the noble and learned Viscount, the Leader of the House, should go in for that kind of propaganda against proceedings which are almost pending, just because he does not like them. I do not think it was right. I think it was a speech which was wrong and calculated to prejudice the whole of the proceedings before they have started; and I consider it was quite in error on his part to do it.
The noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House has quoted from my observations at the time when the First Lord was good enough to make his statement and I will just repeat what he quoted. I said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 244 (No. 2), cols. 32–33]:
"May I ask the noble Lord"—
that is, the First Lord—
"whether he is aware that I personally am very worried about the position of the former
648
Civil Lord, who seemed to me to have social relationships with a minor official of the Admiralty which were quite inappropriate?"
I was quite entitled to make that statement. It had no moral implication. I happen to have views about appropriate relationships between Ministers and civil servants, nationally and locally; between aldermen, councillors and chief officers and any officers of the local authority. They ought to be one of mutual respect for mutual work which has to be done; of encouraging frankness of observation; but they should not be a close relationship. It is not good for the spirit of the service; it is not good if the Minister is to be held in proper respect.
I still say—still more in the light of the correspondence—that the relationship established between the Civil Lord and Mr. Vassall was an inappropriate relationship in all the circumstances of the case. That is what I said and that is what I say again—and there is not to be read into it any implications of relationships of a moral or other character between the Civil Lord and Mr. Vassall. Indeed, I do not know what they were; and I have not said and would not say unless I knew. But I have views about these relationships which may not be shared by all noble Lords. It is not a question of snobbishness; it is a question that the Minister represents the nation, the State, and the civil servant the rest of the Service; and it is so also between the municipality and the chief officers of local authorities. I have known times when they have become "too thick", with the result that the business of the council and, in some cases, the business of the State has not been run as well as it might have been. There were the visits and there is the character of this correspondence. That, again, I say is inappropriate as between a Minister, even a junior Minister, and a civil servant not very high up in the Service, and I think that has all to be taken into account.
The Government at the beginning decided to appoint the committee of high civil servants. I said at the time that I had no personal objection to these three civil servants. They are men deserving of wide public respect, and I have no criticism to make of them. But we did think that it was inappropriate,

649
in a case of this kind, that a committee of civil servants should be the instrument of the inquiry and to make the report. The Government would not listen. This Government do not listen enough, either to noble Lords in this place or honourable gentlemen in another place. The Government therefore make more mistakes than they ought to do.
The Government ought to have known when they set out on this course that there would be trouble about the appointment of the committee of civil servants for this purpose. The Prime Minister ought instinctively to have known, from his knowledge of the House of Commons; and the Leader of the House of Commons ought to have known, but he evidently does not know his House of Commons. Before his speech this afternoon I thought that possibly the Leader of this House would make a better Leader of the House of Commons than the present Leader there——
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: You have to be a Member first.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: —but I am not so certain now, and I cannot promise the noble Viscount to back him for that position. He bag gone down in my estimation, because he brings forward a Motion for a judicial Inquiry and then proceeds to make one of the most injudicial speeches which could possibly be made; and he is a counsel learned in the law; he has appeared in the High Court; he is a lawyer of no mean distinction. He comes here and does a thing like that which I, not a lawyer, would not do—and which, indeed, an elementary schoolboy would not dream of doing. I think it was most improper to come and make that speech.
What has he done? He has retailed all these rumours, given them extended circulation. As my noble friend Lady Summerskill said to me on the Bench: "Good gracious ! he is spreading the allegations now wholesale". She is right. He has brought it out and spread all these things which could have been the subject of inquiry by the Tribunal, and anybody who has said any of these things of course can be called by the Tribunal—and I hope he will be. I suppose I could be called by the Tribunal, but my offence, the noble Viscount will
650
agree, is not as bad as those he quoted earlier on. If they called me I would go and give them this modest lecture about the proper relationship between Ministers and civil servants. That is all I could do for them.
I do say to the noble Viscount—for whom I have high regard, as he knows; we are good friends—he has been naughty this afternoon and made the wrong speech in a situation which called for a judicious speech on the case for this Inquiry. Now the Government have scattered these three civil servants to the four winds. Having set them up they have knocked them down, which I think is a little rough, merely because the Government cannot judge public reactions and Parliamentary reactions. And that was particularly true of the House of Commons and the Leader of the House of Commons, who, I suppose, is so busy doing other silly things in connection with London government that he did not have time to think how the House would react. We support the Motion. I support what has been said by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and I hope the House will approve the Motion and let the inquiry proceed, because after to-day everybody will have to be careful what he says before the Tribunal has reported.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount could tell us this afternoon, arising out of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Poole, whether provision for legal aid will apply to impecunious people who may be represented at the Tribunal.
4.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not want to embark upon a long reply. I would only say that I thank the noble Lords opposite for supporting the Motion, and that I remain somewhat impenitent about my speech. I should like to say at once that I have not, with one qualification, retailed any gossip. I read out charges which were made in newspapers. The one piece of information which I gave to the House is, I understand, being given to the House of Commons and was considered far too serious a rumour to be in private circulation and not to be brought out into the open and nailed firmly as one of the

651
things the Tribunal will inquire into, whether it be true or false.
I thought it also right to say that the only information in the possession of the Government is that it is not correct. I made only one charge: I read out charges of others, which had been allowed to go unanswered. I said that I thought the practice of buying confessions from criminals and retailing them to the public was deplorable and perverted the morals of the nation. This is not prejudicing the hearings of the Tribunal, because, so far as I can see, it is not within the terms of reference of the Tribunal. I have not the smallest hesitation in saying that this was a perfectly proper sentiment to hold and to repeat.
As regards the speech of my noble friend Lord Poole (he and I were very closely associated), I should like to do the best I can with his questions, and with that of the noble Lord from the Liberal Benches. This Tribunal is set up under Statute, and we are limited in this House and in the Government by the terms of the Statute. The actual procedure is within the power of the Tribunal. I do not know what this Tribunal will say about my noble friend's proposal. I am sure they will read this debate, and I cannot say what they will do about it. I think anyone who has been present, as I have been, at three of these Tribunals—indeed anyone who has been present at all—will realise the force of what my noble friend says, even though the particular remedy he proposes may not be the right one.
As regards Parliamentary privilege, again I am speaking without my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack and without previous notice. As I understand it, the position is simply that of an ordinary witness. The Tribunal has the power to subpoena evidence and, in effect, to subpoena duces tecum documents. But the ordinary rules of privilege, I take it, would apply unless Parliament thought fit, for any reason, to suspend them, and we could not by any executive act of the Government suspend them. That, I think, would be the only answer I could give on that point. I appreciate very much what he says about costs, but there again, so far as I understand the Statute, which I read again last night,
652
I do not find any provision in it for costs. It would, I think, require statutory provision—and that is the answer to the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches—for costs to be given; and it would not completely meet my noble friend's point if legal aid were made available, although even that could be done only by Statute, because legal aid does not apply to the kind of cost incurred in this kind of Tribunal, which may amount to thousands of pounds. So that people not qualified for ordinary legal aid may find it a considerable burden. Whether it is right, and in what circumstances, for Parliament to authorise money to be raised from the Consolidated Fund for this purpose is something I cannot answer this afternoon.
I accept entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, said about his own position the other day, and I quite accept that he had not the intention to say more than he did. I also as a matter of fact—although I find that opinions differ very much about this issue on both sides of the House—favour his view that there should be a degree of formality between officials and Ministers in order to safeguard the position of the State. This is not universally believed. I noticed that the practice differs, among both my friends and my political opponents. But this is the doctrine which I share with him.
All the same—and I say no more than I said to him on the occasion—I was sorry myself that, coupled with this serious security situation, in which a man had been convicted of, in effect, disloyalty to his country and of selling his country's secrets, was a horrible story which he brought in himself, of perversion. I wish this had not been confused in the public mind with whatever minor indiscretion—if it was an indiscretion; and that I am not accepting—took place between the Civil Lord and this criminal. I think myself—I quite accept what he says about it—that it was an error of judgment on his part, but I would certainly not say anything worse about him than that. The noble Lord and I have maintained, I think, as he says, regard for one another, notwithstanding that we have oft-times in the past accused one another of errors of judgment without impairing our fundamental affection or respect.

653
Having said that, I think I have answered everything that was raised in the debate. I am sorry that noble Lords opposite did not like my speech; but I remain, as I say, quite impenitent about it, and I hope the House will now accept the Resolution.
On Question, Resolution agreed to.

THE MOLONY REPORT ON CONSUMER PROTECTION
4.52 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD MARKS OF BROUGHTON: My Lords, we are beholden to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, for drawing our attention to the Molony Report on Consumer Protection. I confess that when I listened to the noble Baroness's speech I found it difficult to follow. If I understand it aright, it would appear that she is in favour of a bureaucratic organisation which is to be superimposed upon a lot of dishonest traders who are well known to the community. If I am wrong, perhaps the noble Baroness will inform me; otherwise I will go on with my few remarks, and I promise not to be long.
We must express our thanks to the Molony Committee on Consumer Protection for their painstaking and most informative effort in the production of their Report. They cover a wide field, dealing with many types of merchandise sold to the public by different methods of distribution. There are over 300 pages in the Molony Report. An abridged version would not be helpful, but perhaps advisory pamphlets for each type of selling organisation might be appropriate and certainly more readable to the majority of traders—a Report which they can understand.
I will confine my remarks to clothing and textiles and foodstuffs, but I would draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 896 and to the fact that the consumer must protect himself. The paragraph reads:
"The measures we recommend in aid of the consumer do not aim to relieve him of the duty to look after himself. No system of protection can avert all the consequences of folly or eliminate every possibility of hardship. We have not tried to achieve this and we are sure it is neither possible nor desirable to do so."
It is the function of the enlightened retailer, in concert with the suppliers, to
654
protect the customer against inferior quality goods. Most retailers would say that the large majority of shoppers are most discerning and discriminating as to quality and value. There are a few, of course, who are not so discerning and have sometimes to be protected from their own follies. But, believe me, the customers reject what they do not want, and buy what they want, and they are the arbiters of the success or failure of any business. The reputation of a firm is mirrored in the kind and the quality of goods they offer, and particularly in their selling methods. It is of importance, I agree, to label the goods with the kind of material and their special characteristics, so that the customers know what they are buying. But the confidence and the good will of the customers can be gained only by the quality of goods they can buy, and over a period of years—a long period. All this may sound elementary; nevertheless, it is the essence of sound business and proper public relations.
The Committee rightly said in paragraph 911:
"There can be no doubt that if a higher standard of quality control were generally adopted the consumer would have much less cause for complaint."
Quality control is a complicated problem. Many firms are involved in the production of a garment. The spinner is concerned with the yarn, the weaver with the construction of the cloth, and the textile finisher with dye, print, and with applying chemical processes to produce the required effects. Each of these processes requires technical control to ensure quality. The function of the garment manufacturer is to style the garment, to produce efficiently, with up-to-date machinery and with modern manufacturing techniques. All these people and firms are concerned with the production of that garment, and it would be wrong to lay at the door of the retailer responsibility for something which might have happened throughout the chain of production.
I come back to help those who are perhaps not so knowledgeable about trade, to a source of help which is not sufficiently appreciated or recognised by many firms—I refer to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Attached to the D.S.I.R. are 50 research

655
stations which serve industry in many fields. It is estimated that they cover some two-thirds of our national production. The quest for better raw materials, better techniques, better methods of production and improved values is never ending and one which is the subject of continuous research.
The noble Lady spoke of a sum of £35,000 that had been made available for research on the part of the Consumer Councils, or whatever it was, and believed that it would not go very far. My own firm allocated some £600,000 to the development of quality merchandise. The D.S.I.R. in a recent Report stated:
"There are too many small or medium-sized firms which remain unaware of the nature and the amount of information at their disposal. They often do not recognise the problems which face them."
Such an approach to a pool of knowledge based on research and experience would, I feel, be helpful, not only to the manufacturers supplying the home market but also to those who are interested in the export market. It is to be hoped that the National Productivity Year will do much to publicise the kind of specialised help which is available to industry.
Now, my Lords, I turn to foodstuffs. I regret that the Committee have not given attention to problems which fall within the scope of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955. None of the reasons they give is, in my opinion, good enough for avoiding some expression of view in a field where the consumer must be specially protected. In the few paragraphs which appear in the Report there is no mention of quality foods, or of hygiene and cleanliness, either in the factories producing foods or in the shops which sell them to the public.
The Annual Report of the Ministry of Health states that during 1961 over 5,000 cases of food poisoning were reported in England and Wales. This does not take into account all those who have suffered from nausea and vomiting owing to bad food and who must run into tens of thousands. It is obvious that in the field of production in factories and in selling foods to the consumer, public health can be seriously affected if scrupulous attention is not paid to hygiene and cleanliness. The only mention which
656
may have some remote connection with quality is on page 4, paragraph 9, which states:
"The appropriate Ministers are empowered 'so far as appears to them to be necessary or expedient in the interests of the public health, or otherwise for the protection of the public' to regulate the composition and preparation of food …".
Does this mean that another Molony Committee should be set up to satisfy themselves that the authorities should enforce these regulations in the interests of public health and for the protection of the consumer? Do the authorities satisfy themselves as to the standards of hygiene and cleanliness in many food manufacturing plants? And do they approve the methods of handling and the display of foods in the shops? Who has not seen perishable foods, like meat and fish, displayed on open slabs, exposed to all the dirt and flies that may be around?
My Lords, the Molony Report presents only half, or less than half, the picture on consumer protection. There are many progressive food manufacturers and retailers who have set their sights at a level much higher than called for by present legislation. But are there not, too, many food manufacturers and shopkeepers whose standards are far too low? If the public health is to be protected, what steps should be taken to remedy the unsatisfactory position? Much can be done by attention to common-sense standards of cleanliness and to the principle: "Clean as you go". Infestation of all kinds can be eliminated both by attention to cleanliness and by effective measures such as the screening of doors and windows to keep out flies; and also by the use of suitable methods of disinfestation against rodents and other vermin.
My Lords, it is good that these problems should be publicly ventilated. Constructive criticism can lead only to better standards and raise the efficiency of all concerned for the ultimate benefit of the trader, and, above all, the protection of the consumer.
5.8 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I do not think there is any need for me to attempt to repeat the eloquent tributes that have been made to the Molony Committee and to the great industry

657
which they have shown, and also to the excellent speech we have heard from the noble Lady this afternoon when making her maiden speech from the Dispatch Box, if that expression is a permissible one. I had one or two things I was proposing to say which have already been said a great deal better. That always happens, so I am afraid what I do have to say will be rather a rag-bag of ideas and suggestions. At any rate, I shall try to keep it short.
I should like to begin with definitions. The Molony Committee on page 154 of their Report deal with the definition of "consumer sale". Perhaps it is surprising that the definition does not arise until page 154; but perhaps, on the other hand, it is not so surprising. I think it was Professor Kenney, in his classic The Outlines of Criminal Law, who said
"Definitions belong rather to the end of one's study of a subject than to the beginning."
But, be that as it may, the Committee have put forward one definition in which they do not seem to have complete faith because they go on to put forward an alternative. I am going to suggest to your Lordships that the alternative is possibly superior to their own favourite. They suggest that a "consumer sale" should be defined as a sale by way of trade of goods not exclusively for use or consumption in any trade or business.
I should have thought that completely in that way to exclude from consumer protection goods bought exclusively for business purposes was unfortunate. Take a simple example. A farmer buys a typewriter for the purposes of that large amount of office work that farmers have to do. If a farmer buys a hundredweight of manure he does not need consumer protection for, being a farmer, he is supposed to know something about manure. But a farmer, surely, is not as a farmer expected to know anything about typewriters. It therefore seems unfortunate that, simply because the typewriter is used or required entirely for business purposes, it should be by this definition taken out of the field of consumer protection. For those reasons, my Lords, I would suggest that the second horse the Committee put their money on is a better one. They suggest in the next paragraph, Paragraph 470, that a consumer sale might be defined as a sale by way of
658
retail trade or business at or from any place whatsoever, leaving it to the courts to decide in cases of dispute and difficulty whether or not a particular sale was a retail sale. My Lords, I think that most people can recognise a retail sale when they experience one, and I should not have thought the courts would, in fact, be troubled very much, and that this second definition was superior to the first.
The subject appears to lend itself to division into two quite distinct categories. There is the protection from danger, and the protection from being deceived. Now I apprehend that the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, will probably be dealing with the danger side of this great question. I propose, therefore, in the few further remarks that I am about to make, to deal with the protection from deception angle. Early in the Report, in paragraph 346, the Committee deal with seals of approval. They start by going in some detail into the seal of approval of the Good Housekeeping Institute, which they say is perhaps the best known to the general public. Noble Lords may have had the experience—I have—of going into a retail shop and asking whether or not a particular item on sale is recommended, and being given the reply: "I have not tried it myself, but it is advertised on television and it has the seal of the Good Housekeeping Institute, which is supposed to be a recommendation."
My Lords, it is rather disquieting, when one reads in paragraph 347 of the Report, to find the Committee saying:
"We are bound to say that the impression left upon us was distinctly unfavourable."
In paragraph 350 they say:
"We are left with little confidence in the Institute, in the quality of its standards, in the reliability of its testing"—
and so on. Then in the next paragraph they say:
"In reaching this unhappy conclusion, we do not imply that the Institute is cynically and deliberately misusing its seal for private profit. It makes little or no money from the operation."
Their final words about this Institute are that,
"the trust which a considerable section of the public places in this seal as an independent assurance of sound quality is without foundation."

659
What the Committee say about this well-known Institute, they say in a good deal stronger terms about another, the British Safety Council. In paragraph 360 they describe this Council as a body which is,
"a potential menace to the public."
They say that its seal of approval was discontinued in December, 1960, and the Committee seem to be thankful for that. That is a sad story. I am quite sure that up to now great faith has been placed by many purchasers in these seals given by Institutes, and it is very disquieting to find them reported on so badly. The Committee say, in paragraph 372, that their recommended remedy is registration of the particular seal as a true certification trade mark and the prohibition of the use of all others. They say:
"Our examination of seals of approval leads us to think that few existing seals, as at present operated, would survive. We do not think that the consumer would lose by the passing of the rest."
My Lords, as I say, I think that is a sad story.
I should now like to say a word or two about manufacturers' guarantees, whereby in exchange for certain assurances given by the manufacturer with one hand, so to speak, other and possibly more valuable rights are taken away from the consumer with the other. The Committee put it in this way:
"A deep objection, already noted, to exclusion clauses"
—as they call them—
"is that they deny, or appear to deny, the consumer his general right against both retailer and manufacturer and confine him to the discretionery rights conferred by the guarantee. We think this is an excessive price to pay in return for the limited benefits of a guarantee".
They go on to say, in paragraph 435:
"The overriding argument in favour of prohibiting 'contracting-out' is that it enables well-organised commerce consistently to impose unfair terms on the consumer and to deny him what the law means him to have."
They say that a particular consumer
"will find it difficult and sometimes impossible, to avoid submitting to the terms of business …adopted",
because he possesses no bargaining power of sufficient weight to control and to compel. Even more are the Committee of this opinion, when it comes to the question of possible actions for damages for negligence, where injury is done as
660
the result of dangerous and defective goods. The Committee deal with this aspect in paragraph 475. They say that consumers:
"are ignorant of, and indeed unthinking about, their rights in the event of an accident attributable to negligently-caused defects. They do not realise what they are signing away."
They recognise that manufacturers, on the other side of this argument, may be afraid of heavy claims arising from negligence and could insure against the risk. Well, my Lords, the manufacturers should not put themselves in this position, in my submission, and they can, indeed, if they choose to do so, insure against that risk.
The only other topic that I should like to say a few words upon is hire purchase. The Committee had a good deal to say about hire purchase. They point out that when the Hire-Purchase Act, 1938, was passed, hire purchase was almost exclusively the province of the poorer sections of the community who, quite rightly, were protected by that Act, and given greater protection than applied to the general public under contracts of sale under the old Sale of Goods Act, 1893. But since that time, of course, hire purchase transactions have increased in popularity tremendously, and the point has now been reached where, in many cases, the hire-purchase customer is in a better position, a more secure position, than the person who pays cash. My Lords, the Committee, in my submission quite rightly, do not favour that situation. Hire purchase has its great advantages, but it has its dangers, too. In an economy which is bound to have its ups and downs, surely the proliferation of hire purchase commitments is bound to accentuate those rises and falls in the national economy, which is an adverse thing. For that reason, surely the cash customer should not be at a disadvantage in any respect as against the hire purchase customer. The Committee therefore recommend that there should be at least equation of the two.
The Committee make one specific recommendation in paragraph 512, in deference to their conviction that there are many cases of ignorant customers being persuaded by high-pressure, door-to-door salesmen to sign hire-purchase agreements without realising that they are signing a hire-purchase agreement. They put forward what they regard as

661
a simple remedy for this situation. They suggest that on the document there should he a place for the hirer's signature in a "box" which should also contain, partly above and partly below the line carrying the signature, the words,
"I realise that by my signature I am offering to commit myself to a hire-purchase agreement on the terms contained in this document."
My Lords, even that is 24 words, and I wonder whether the sort of person who might be deceived in this way is really going to read even 24 words while preparing to sign a document, probably while the high-pressure salesman is carefully talking about something else. I would recommend that, instead of 24 words, you have in the "box" on the document for signature the three words,
"Hire-purchase agreement".
The words, "hire-purchase" can be in the "box" above the place where the signature goes, and the word "agreement" can be below the place where the signature goes. I feel that in those circumstances the most ignorant person could not fail to realise that he or she was, in fact, signing a hire-purchase agreement.
The noble Lady referred to this next matter: that, in the case of hire-purchase agreements induced by door-to-door salesmen, there should be a "cooling-off" time, as the Committee call it, granted to the customer; and in paragraph 526 they make their appropriate recommendation to this end. Finally on this subject, my Lords, the Committee recommend the abolition of the £300 value limit which has stood now since 1938 under the Hire-Purchase Act of that year, and point out that nowadays hire-purchase transactions are frequently carried out in cars and caravans—and, of course the £300 value limit does not apply in many cases of hire-purchase agreements for cars or caravans.
The next part of the Report deals with the Merchandise Marks Act. I should not in any event feel competent to venture into this field, particularly as I understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cawley, is going to deal with this subject. But I hope that the few random suggestions I have felt it valid to make will commend themselves to Her Majesty's Government.
5.24 p.m.
LORD SAINSBURY: My Lords, I rise to speak with considerable nervousness, only somewhat lessened by the knowledge of your kindly indulgence to those who address your Lordships for the first time. In welcoming the Final Report of the Committee on Consumer Protection, I should perhaps declare an interest in so far as I am the chairman of the family firm which bears my name and which is a large retailer of food.
I should like, if I may, to make a few general comments. In my opinion, the Molony Committee had to hold a very delicate balance. This is very well put, I thought, in a leading article in the Financial Times on July 26 last. I quote:
"The Molony Committee had to balance the advantage of protecting the weak against the disadvantage of multiplying restrictions on other people's freedom of action. It is plainly right to stress continually the fact that the consumer's hand cannot be held all the time and that the world cannot be legislated into perfection."
The second point I should like to make is that it is easy to exaggerate the amount of consumer dissatisfaction, and it will not surprise your Lordships that, as a retailer, I welcome the Committee's conclusion that, on the whole, the consumer does not think he or she is ill-served. I am sure my noble friend Lord Marks of Broughton, who I regret has left the Chamber, would agree with me in saying that success in retailing in this country largely depends on customer good will, and that equally the manufacturer or processor, if he is to be successful in the long run, has to concern himself with the reputation that is attached to his brand.
In saying this, I do not for one moment want to suggest that there are no sharp or undesirable practices, or to suggest that there is no need for further consumer protection. In my own experience there are, for example, cases of visual deception in certain packages which are deliberately designed to look as large as those of competitors' packages that contain more. There are also manufacturers who, instead of putting the weight in a prominent position on the package, seem deliberately to put it in a place most difficult for the customer to find. There are also instances of ullage,

663
which the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines as
"What a package wants of being full."
These are just three examples of misguided practice, in my view, by the manufacturers concerned. But I should like to stress that only a very small minority of firms adopt this misguided policy.
My Lords, I think it is obvious that there is a much greater need for consumer protection in the case of consumer durables, that are infrequently purchased and are expected to have a satisfactory life of some years, than in the case of food which is frequently purchased and soon consumed. In the latter case, if a consumer feels, for example, that she has been misled by an advertisement, she is quickly aware of its false claims. This is obviously one of the reasons why food gets comparatively little mention in the Report.
I should like to express complete agreement with the Committee's view on price control—and here I quote:
"So long as there is (as now) vigorously competitive trade in consumer goods, and no fear of scarcity or monopoly, price control is an unwanted weapon of consumer protection".
If I may say so in all humility, as one who served during the last war on many Ministry of Food consultative committees, the fixing of prices which are fair both to the consumer and to the trader is very difficult. It is easy for people who do not know the complexities of a particular trade to advocate it. I am reminded of this by what my noble friend Lord Trenchard said in another connection in The Times Agricultural Supplement a few months ago
"…indulging in the easy game of criticising someone else's business when one is not handicapped by a knowledge of the facts".
I should like now, my Lords, if I may, to refer to another form of price control—namely, resale price maintenance imposed by individual manufacturers, and to express a mild regret that the Committee sought direction from the then President of the Board of Trade and, as a result of that direction, did not pursue the subject further. The Committee also stated—and I now quote:
"We subsequently learnt that your predecessor had decided to institute a fact-finding inquiry into this matter, and that the inquiry
664
would be confidential and we have had no news of its outcome".
I think I am right in saying that we in this House also as yet have had no news of the Government policy decision as a result of that fact-finding inquiry. The Committee, however, towards the end of their Report, in paragraph 902, state:
"Restrictive practices of any kind which keep up costs or prices are inimical to the consumer. Consumer interest might require an extension and stiffening of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956. The repeal of its provisions permitting enforcement of individual resale price maintenance might greatly benefit consumers."
In the retail food trade one can say that very few, virtually no, manufacturers, outside possibly confectionery, enforce resale price maintenance. This, coupled with the work of the Restrictive Practices Court, has led to very keen competition at both the manufacturing and the retail level. Of course, this competition is welcomed by some, but not by all the parties concerned.
I do not wish to weary your Lordships and I am very conscious of the tradition that a maiden speech should be short and not unduly controversial; but before sitting down I would say something about the growth of what I personally consider to be undesirable promotion practices. Hardly a day passes without the announcement of some new gift scheme. Recently, for the lover of what I believe is called in certain circles "pop" music, there was a free jazz record with every pound-packet of a certain well-known brand of margarine. For those who like artificial flowers, there have recently been plastic roses with a packet of detergent, plastic carnations with a rival brand, artificial orchids with a famous brand of soap, and only last week I heard that, with the approach of the festive season, there was artificial mistletoe with a liquid detergent. Would it not be better if the manufacturer, instead of playing on the customer's psychological weakness, reduced his price? It is axiomatic that a free offer is never free—somebody pays and that somebody, in my opinion, is ultimately the consumer. My Lords, I believe that a Consumer Council could do a great deal to educate the public and to persuade manufacturers to discontinue these undesirable practices.
May I conclude by expressing the wish that a strong Consumer Council may

665
soon be appointed and that it may have a beneficial effect on the well being of the people of this country?
House adjourned during pleasure and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.
5.38 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, before I perform the pleasurable and traditional task of offering my congratulations on the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, may I hope he will agree with me that ladies come first, and therefore allow me to offer a word of congratulation to the maiden speech of a maiden lady, the maiden speech from the Front Bench of the noble Baroness who introduced the Motion before your Lordships House? I have to be very careful because I think it was a tour de force. I have never heard so many words delivered in such a space of time and never such a very fine review of the mass of words in this document as the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, gave this afternoon. I would congratulate her. Some time ago I asked her if she had read the thing. She blushed a little. She did not like to say "No". She said "I have read nearly all of it. I am going to finish it. I have been on it for two and a half months." She showed us this afternoon that she has a mastery of it which I envy.
And now to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. It gives me particular pleasure to congratulate him on a maiden speech. It was not at all controversial, because I agreed with everything he said, and I am going to follow him into some of it. If there is one thing that your Lordships always like, it is to listen to a speech from someone who knows what he is talking about. I think that we are very fortunate in having the addition of the noble Lord to our deliberations, just as we are fortunate in having, on the other side of the House, his counterpart, the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Broughton. I hope that we shall hear the noble Lord very often, and that sometimes he will be able to break away from the inhibitions of a maiden speech and be highly controversial, as I know he well can be. Now, to the subject of the Motion.
The Molony Report contains a lot that is good. It says a lot that needed
666
to be said. But, if I may say this in an attempt at a little humour, while there is a lot of good in Molony, there is also a lot of boloney in Molony. I am going to deal with only three things, because I think that we can discuss this Report to better advantage when legislation which is before another place comes to your Lordships' House, if it ever reaches us. It was here in this House some time ago and never reached another place, and I understand that the Bill before another place is little different from the Bill which left here. However, I am not going to pass judgment on that.
The Molony Report says very well that competition is the consumer's best friend. Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, has said, in paragraph 902 the Report skates lightly over the one predominating fact in retail trade today that militates against competition—that is, resale price maintenance. But the Report shows its cloven hoof—or its Achilles heel, whichever you like to call it—in paragraph 7, which the noble Lord quoted. This paragraph shows that even the Molony Committee were not independent. They went to the President of the Board of Trade to ask whether they could deal with resale price maintenance, and were told that they were to sheer off it, because that was to be the subject of a private and confidential report. That was in 1959. The President of the Board of Trade told them they could not deal with this subject because it was to be referred to the Monopolies Commission at some future date. It never has been. That is not surprising.
The noble Baroness cast some doubts on whether the Board of Trade ever had the consumer's interests at heart. Of course, it never has. It has always been subjected to the pressure of vested interests. It was the pressure of vested interests that kept Sections 25 and 26 in the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. Section 25 makes individual resale price maintenance still operative. Manufacturers can bring sanctions against any sellers trying to pass on in lower prices to retail purchasers the benefit of efficiency; and the consequential part of it, in Section 26, even gives the producer of a branded price-maintained article power to control the price of second-hand products taken in part exchange for his new product. I have

667
never heard such arrant nonsense as that.
As your Lordships will remember, we argued this out in 1956, when the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill was before your Lordships' House, but the Government would not give way, because that was the result of a bargain made behind the scenes. I do not know whether your Lordships have read an informative article which appeared in The Times the other day. The writer discussed the way legislation is framed behind the scenes of a Government Department between the official level and vested interests, so that when it comes before Parliament, Parliament is almost impotent. In another place the other day, the President of the Board of Trade admitted that in connection with the Weights and Measures Bill before the House of Commons his Department had already consulted 200 vested interests. That Bill will largely be the result of the bargains that have been made.
The Molony Report, in spite of saying that competition is the consumer's best friend, did not deal at all with solo selling, which is one of the iniquities of retailing at the present time. Petrol is one of the outstanding examples, but there are others, where retailers are paid a higher discount to refuse to stock the goods of other manufacturers. There are restrictive covenants in many retail agreements to-day that make it impossible for a retailer to stock a range of goods. The result is that the consumer is denied freedom of choice. This practice is still allowed, and I do not know any enactment that can alter it. I believe that some of it is before the Monopolies Commission at the present time, but this kind of thing is rife in the retail selling of consumer durables. There are the keeping up of prices and restrictive practices of the worst possible kind, which the Molony Committee, like the Pharisees of old, ignore by passing on the other side.
After side-stepping the important matters referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury—incidentally, the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Broughton, did not build up their huge and efficient businesses by resale price maintenance. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Broughton, that his business has been built up on
668
selling articles with a branded name, the only guarantee of quality that the consumer has, because it means that the manufacturer's goodwill is behind the brand—the Report goes on to say, in paragraph 847:
"…the consumer needs an independent and forceful body to speak and to act on his behalf."
Then they propose that the way to do that is to set up a Consumer Council, which can never be independent; which can never be forceful, and which is absolutely devoid of all power of positive action.
LORD DERWENT: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I wish he would develop his statement that the Council can never be forceful and never independent.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I will leave the noble Lord under no illusions. I am going to tell him precisely, if he will let me finish.
Perhaps the biggest piece of boloney in the whole of Molony is paragraph 853, where it sets out the argument against allowing this Consumer Council to have any teeth at all. The noble Lady said that it must have teeth. What does it say in this paragraph? It says that the Council if it is going to do its job as an independent and forceful authority to act on behalf of the consumer, will be continually at odds and in acrimony with trading interests. But if it is going to do its job properly the Council will lead its life at odds with all the people mentioned by the noble Lady and by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. If it is just going to cut out anything that is going to be acrimonious, it might as well never be set up. I know that it will be inconvenient for the Board of Trade, because I imagine that the Board of Trade's idea in advocating this Consumer Council is to have a nice feather-bed or mattress between the consumer and the functions of the Department.
Let us look at the Council. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, wants me to tell him why I say that it will never be independent and will have no force and no authority. It is going to be set up by the President of the Board of Trade. The Committee let one small cat out of the bag in paragraph 824, where they say:
"For the most part it was said or implied that the power of appointment might most

669
appropriately be placed in your hands as President of the Board of Trade; but we note two suggestions (possibly inspired by the Board of Trade's traditionally close links with trade interests)"—
that is a masterly understatement—
"that this duty should rest upon the Lord President of the Council."
But the President of the Board of Trade has said in another place that he hopes to announce the name of the Chairman and the members within a short space of time. So we can now take it that he will be the appointing Minister. The Council is going to issue a Report. May I ask the noble Lord if it will issue the Report to Parliament, or will it issue the Report to the President of the Board of Trade? Who is going to speak on behalf of this Consumer Council? I suppose that it will be the President of the Board of Trade. All we shall get, in reply to any questions we want to ask about the functions of the Council or what it is doing, will be the departmental reply. Is that the beginning of an independent authority?
The Chairman is to be paid £3,000 out of public funds, and the members of the Council £500 each. They will be officers of profit under the Crown. So no Member of another place will be able to accept one of these positions, and any noble Lord or noble Lady who accepts one will be gagged: because we have at the present time noble Lords who are Chairmen of public bodies, and some supposedly independent bodies, who are inhibited from speaking in your Lordships' House. I suppose the best way for the Government to gag the noble Lady who moved the Motion on any of these subjects is to offer her £500 to be a member of the Council. She could then sit in splendid isolation and hear the Government spokesman giving forth about the work of the Consumer Council.
Let us at least learn from experience. Parliament has set up a Council on Tribunals. The purpose of that Council is to safeguard and be the watchdog of the interests of the citizen against the Administration and against bureaucracy. It was to be absolutely independent. If your Lordships remember, you fought tooth and nail right through the whole of the procedure on the Bill in this House to get some teeth in it in Clause 1(1)(c), which is written across my heart.
670
That was achieved over almost the dead bodies of the Establishment. But time has gone on, and now the Council on Tribunals, the watchdog of the rights of the common citizen and his privileges against the creeping paralysis of bureaucracy, is almost an appendage of a Government Department; and, if the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack will not mind my saying so, it is the appendage of his Department. From an Answer given by the Government the other day in your Lordships' House, and from the subject of a very informed article in The Times the other day, it is clear that we can expect no more real progress in that direction. The Chairman of the Council on Tribunals is a Member of your Lordships' House, inhibited from speaking in the House, and when anybody interested in the work of that body raises any subject he has to be content with the departmental reply. The same thing will happen with this Consumer Council. That is why I say to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in answer to his question, without any equivocation and from past experience, that that is what the end of this Consumer Council will be.
I think we have to make up our mind whether a Consumer Council is necessary. It is set out clearly in this Report that at most it is going to be advisory. The Molony Report sets out four things with which the Council should not be entrusted. It is to do nothing objective. It has no powers. It cannot deal with any complaints. It cannot have executive action and it cannot have any say in the promulgation of regulations having statutory force. But it can have a lot of other functions, all of them advisory:
"…to provide advice and guidance… to offer advice…to offer advice and …to use its influence."
I sympathise with the noble Lady's difficulties. While she asked for teeth for this Consumer Council, she did not suggest how one could give it teeth. I will only say that it will not have any teeth because the President of the Board of Trade has publicly stated that this Consumer Council will not require any legislation to bring it into force. So that is that. If you want to give a body like this teeth; if there is a real necessity to add to the number of advisory bodies; if there is any real necessity to give any other body legislative power except the

671
local authorities—and I quite agree they have fallen down flat on their faces in carrying out a lot of these things; and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, will bear me out—there is only one thing you can have, and that is a body something like the Restrictive Trade Practices Court, and something like an Ombudsman. But I do not think we shall ever get that through a bureaucracy who are not going to have their powers in matters such as these curtailed. This is one of the things we shall be continually fighting.
So I say quite frankly to all the advocates who want to put teeth into this Consumer Council that they are up against an almost impossible job. I agree that there are many things that want doing, such as those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. The public are deluded. I should like to see printed on every cigarette packet which contains a coupon, "Do not forget that in order to give you a gift we have reduced the size of the cigarettes", Which would be true. There is also the scandalous thing that these coupons and all these free gift schemes are licences to print money. Whether or not we want to have legislation for them, I think is a matter for consideration.
I think the Molony Committee have served only one useful purpose. They have made an attempt to pinpoint some of the objections. But do not forget that it is getting old now, and with the advent of the self-service store and the supermarket the consumer choice is getting wider. Although I would not attempt to enter into the mystical field of sizes of ladies' dresses and wearing apparel, from my own personal experience I have never yet known a woman who could not get the better of any dressmaker or gown shop if she set her mind so to do. So I think we could do a lot better than wasting the public money and wasting our time in setting up another advisory body, by strengthening the bodies we have and strengthening the legislation which we have; because we have the Merchandise Marks Act and the Weights and Measures Act and if that legislation were properly carried out and properly enforced—which it is not by a long way—I think that would be the most sensible way to
672
go about it, without having this little bit of sugar and trying to pacify the consumer by having this grandiose Consumer Council.
6.5 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I would add my thanks to those of other noble Lords to my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject, and my congratulations on the matter and manner of her speech—her maiden speech from the Box. I was with my noble friend a month ago, and heard her then say that she hoped that eventually she would read this Report right through. I think she has to-day not only given us proof that she has read and assimilated it but given us a very comprehensive picture and some useful comments, for which we are grateful. I would also add my word of congratulation to my noble friend Lord Sainsbury on a first-class maiden speech, delivered, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said, with knowledge, which we would expect from him, and also with clarity and humour, which we enjoyed. We have indeed witnessed this evening a new formidable combination in the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Marks of Broughton and Lord Sainsbury. I always understood that the quickest way to a man's heart was through his stomach. I think we can therefore say to my noble friend Lord Sainsbury that he is closest to men's hearts and Lord Marks of Broughton is closest to their skins.
We had a good deal of criticism of the Molony Committee's Report, much of it just now from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, with a great deal of which I agree. But I think we must agree that this three years' task and this monumental Report of the Molony Committee represent a great service to the consumer, and whatever constructive criticisms we make should not obscure that fact. In fact, the Committee themselves underline the difficulties of getting to grips with the problem in one pregnant sentence, in paragraph 21, where they say:
"Consumer protection is an amorphous conception that cannot be defined."
That is tantamount to an admission that, except in general terms or in certain limited fields, consumers cannot be protected by Statute. Whatever we do,

673
and whatever the Government do, I think that the greatest protection for the consumers will always be the honesty, integrity and good sense of manufacturers and traders, and the common sense and good taste of consumers themselves. But understandably Molony was right to advocate the setting up of a Consumers' Council as a continuing body for the purpose of education, propaganda and indirect control of both manufacturers and the Government.
I would submit, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, when he comes to reply, that there is one important field in which the Government can do much more than they are doing, and that is in the field of safety standards which should be enforced with all articles where
"the consumer incurs undue risk of personal injury."
The Home Secretary already possesses the necessary powers under the Consumers Protection Act which we passed last year, and it is most disturbing that he has been so slow to use these powers. For example, there are mentioned in the Report matters such as, in paragraph 227, wrongly coloured electric cables. Is there any reason at all why the Molony Committee recommendations that their sale should be prohibited should not be immediately implemented? We all know that they are mainly, if not entirely, imported, and are usually inferior articles. Why should they be foisted on an unwitting and defenceless public?—because people are defenceless in matters of that kind. Then there are the oil heaters mentioned in paragraph 230. It is two and a half years since the Government promised to make regulations, and they have not done so. Why is there this regrettable lack of urgency? Must we wait this winter for a few more horrifying fires before action is taken?
Then I would mention inflammable clothing. I know, regrettably, that the Molony Committee in their Interim Report did not recommend the compulsory use of flame-resistant material for children's nightdresses. I think that was a great mistake, because improvements in the proban process have overcome the earlier objections. Surely we could take this matter up and safeguard children from a horribly painful death. Only last week in a local West Country paper—you see these cases only in local
674
newspapers; they axe not thought to be important enough for the national Press—there was this story about a little girl of eight:
"Child's nightdress caught fire. 'Shocking tragedy', says coroner at inquest."
She lived for three days and the report went on:
"She said she placed some 'conkers' on top of the stove and two of them had fallen through the grill. Apparently she was trying to get them out when her nightdress caught fire… it was not made of flame-proof material."
I think this is something which should not be left to the discretion of either traders or consumers. We know that this material can be produced; it has been improved; it costs a little more. In clothing of this kind, children's night clothes, we should insist that the material used should be flame resisting.
Then there is electrical equipment generally. Some progress is now being made in safety standards for electrical equipment by the British Electrical Approvals Board. Articles are now being tested against British Standards, and the "BEAB" mark, as we have to call it for short, can be fixed to successfully tested lines. The Electrical Development Association is co-operating and arrangements have been made for check testing, and manufacturers have to give notice of any change. I should like to draw attention to the fact that the Molony Committee pointed out that in the first year nearly 50 per cent. of applications for the mark were rejected. That is very encouraging evidence of the standard of testing, but it is most alarming to reflect that there is nothing to stop these sub-standard and possibly unsafe goods from continuing to be sold. I learned on inquiry that the latest figures show that out of 754 applications for the mark 455 have been approved; that is, over 60 per cent. We are moving in the right direction.
As already reported, B.E.A.B. has the full approval of the Molony Committee, mainly for the reason that application has been made for certification of the mark. Naturally that is important, but it must not be forgotten that it is a manufacturers' organisation, paid fox by manufacturers, and it will have value to them only if, presumably by extensive advertising, the public becomes "BEAB" mark conscious and buys

675
articles bearing the mark in preference to others. I would say that that is an added reason for the Government, after a reasonable time, a year or two I suppose, to step in and prohibit the sale of unsafe equipment. They may decide that unsafe equipment is that which does not satisfy thus particular mark or standard of testing.
But it is not enough to ensure that appliances are safe; we should also see that electrical wiring and installations are safe. There is the National Inspection Council which has been going for six years. It approves lists of contractors and private firms and the Area Electricity Boards, and inspects their work in order to ensure a high standard. I think the Government ought to ensure in their dealings with local authorities and other bodies who are going to put up new buildings, factories and housing estates, that these standards should be observed. It ought to be in the contract. It is not going to make it very difficult. We should not need any legislation for it but it would add greatly to safety.
Whilst agreeing with the Committee's approval for B.E.A.B., I am rather at a loss to understand their hypercritical attitude to all other existing testing organisations. There is no proposal at all for setting up a Government testing or sponsoring organisation, and we cannot therefore, in my submission, dispense, at this stage in any case, with the independent organisations. Nor should we make it virtually impossible for new ones to be set up.
In this connection I would accept the Committee's recommendation in paragraph 315 for a reliable scheme for granting seals of approval. The absolute essential, to my mind, is that, whoever pays for it, the testing must be completely independent and free from direct or indirect pressures. I even find that the B.S.I. certified trade marks come in for substantial criticism in the Report. Certainly the Institution draws its funds, in part, from industry but there is not a jot of evidence that its recommendations are not free, unbiased and of great value. In the last ten years I myself have had two experiences in my own industry and I can certify that the long-drawn-out negotiations do not arise out
676
of the desire to accommodate anyone but to ensure technical accuracy and the highest possible standards.
The offshoot of B.S.I., the Shopper's Guide, is described by Molony as a "struggling orphan", suffering from its dependence on manufacturers' contributions. Last week I received a letter from the Cornmarket Press, Limited, advising me that because of this criticism in the Molony Report it has been decided to set up a consumer advisory trust to publish Shopper's Guide. This, I am informed, will be a non-profit-making body. Editorial control will be independently vested in a council composed mainly of Consumers' Advisory Council members. Management and distribution will be sub-contracted to Corn-market Press for a cost-plus fee; in other words they will make a profit out of it. I do not say that is essentially a bad thing; I am merely recording the fact. This new organisation, in their latter, are satisfied that they had met the Molony objection. I wish them well; but for my part there was nothing wrong with the old arrangement with the B.S.I. Someone has to find the money. What really matters is the integrity of the Council, and I submit that that was never in doubt.
The one valid Molony criticism of both Shopper's Guide and its more successful competitor Which? is that their assessments are admittedly and unavoidably incomplete and they may therefore be damaging to manufacturers whose products are left out and excluded from consideration. At the same time, the suggestion made by Molony that the directors of Consumers' Association Limited, who publish Which?, might conceal profits through the payment of extravagant salaries to staff is, I think, a bit far-fetched. From its very early days I have been an admiring subscriber to Which?, but only this month, as a manufacturer, have I had first-hand experience of their methods—I happen to be in Which? for November. I can say that so far as their working is concerned it is of great value to the consumers, and, with one reservation, which I will mention later, it is absolutely fair to manufacturers.
The first intimation you get that you are under scrutiny is a letter informing

677
you that they have bought a number of your products at retail shops, and they send you a schedule setting out the dimensions, materials and other particulars on it—their own description, of course—and they ask you if all this is right. You are then entitled to say whether it is correct or not, and I believe they allow you to add any remarks. The next thing you know is what you read about it in the book.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, does that mean that the manufacturer is given the opportunity of agreeing with the assessment of the article in Which?
LORD STONHAM: No, not at all. You do not know what they are going to say about it. The kind of thing you are asked to agree with is whether the article is 30 inches long or 36 inches. They have bought your product, measured it, and decided what materials are in it, and they tell you only that. They even tell you the retail price, if you do not yourselves fix it. My firm never fixes the retail price, and I was astounded to find there was a variation of some 15 per cent. in the retail prices they had obtained from different shops. But that is by the way. They buy the articles from the shops so that the consumers know that standard goods are being tested. That is how it should be, and nothing so far could be fairer.
Certainly I was well satisfied with the outcome of Which?, if only for the fact that the publication of good photographs to 300,000 subscribers has made a substantial difference to the sales. I was also astonished but highly gratified; astonished to think they would try a test like this, but gratified to learn they had held a flame to my job for one minute and it had not caught fire; most others did. That was splendid. After correctly saying that the job was well ventilated and airy, they described it as a fault that it was not watertight. The article is made from woven fabric in which thousands of holes are visible to the naked eye. One of its virtues is that it is airy, and that is why we use that particular material, so that babies can breath. You might as well expect a sieve to hold water. Such silly mistakes—and this was the one reservation—could be avoided if they simply told the manufacturer beforehand just these
678
points; and that nonsense could be avoided prior to publication.
This proviso is particularly important if these tests are used on television. Silly mistakes do not matter very much in Which? but they could matter if broadcast to millions of people who could not feel and handle the product. I wish that the Consumers' Association would sell their publication on the bookstalls. Naturally, we wanted a large number more to send round, and on inquiry we were told we could have as many copies as we liked at £1 a time; that is the cost of a year's subscription. That is painfully autocratic, in my view.
As the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, mentioned, the Molony Committee was a bit rough with Good Housekeeping, in which I declare an interest because I am a director of a company which acts as advisers to the Institute. The Report describes it as best known to the general public, with whom it enjoys a fair standing, but declares that it has little confidence in the Institute or the quality of its standards. Paradoxically, the Committee say that the merchandise which bears the seal generally satisfies the customer, but regard this as due more to the calibre of the manufacturers who seek the seal for its advertising value. It is difficult to imagine manufacturers seeking the seal for any other reason; nor would they seek it if it had no value or the customers had no faith in it.
The fact is that this non-profit-making Institute has been in useful existence for 38 years. It is the only organisation which refunds the purchase price of an article if a customer claims that its performance does not justify the seal. There are very few claims made out of millions of seal-bearing articles sold, and this, allied to the fact that out of every five articles offered for testing only three are awarded the seal, has made it a household word which should not, in my view, be lightly cast aside.
I am quite sure that there is room for improvement in all the organisations' methods. I think that the Committee's definition of a seal of approval and their proposals for registration should be acceptable to all bona-fide organisations. Indeed, I do not doubt that they will all apply for certification. This being so, I would submit that the obvious course

679
would be for the proposed Consumer Council to negotiate the necessary changes with these bodies and maintain a close liaison with these established organisations to ensure the widest possible publication of the Consumer Council's periodic reports and instructions.
I entirely agree with what my noble friend Baroness Burton of Coventry and others have said; this Consumer Council must not be a mere façade. We have had the expression that it must be given "teeth", and I think we all agree that we have not seen yet where the teeth are going to grow from. The Molony Report is adamant that it should not handle consumers' complaints. Indeed, the modest scale of finance proposed in the Report would not permit that, in any case. But someone must handle complaints or the whole report will be a sheer waste of time. Therefore the Council must act through agencies, and obviously it must make a beginning with those agencies which are already established.
Certainly the Citizens' Advice Bureaux have an important part to play, as my noble friend Baroness Burton of Coventry made clear; we do not want to underrate their importance in any way. But as of now they have not the equipment, they are not open sufficient days or sufficient hours; their staff to a large extent is voluntary; they have not got the technical knowledge. When I was a Member of another place, in common with the 615 other Members we were all citizens' advice bureaux every Friday night on all kinds of subjects. My noble friend may have been competent to answer some of the questions that must have been addressed to her, and I should have thought our general knowledge as Members of another place was equal to that of members of the staff of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. Certainly they used to send a lot of people to us to answer questions they could not answer.
It is no good the Government thinking, "We are going to set up the Consumer Council, give them £125,000 a year, and the job is going to be done". It will not be done—it cannot be done—unless they have the agencies to do the job, to tackle complaints, to disseminate information
680
and to see that the whole thing works. I think that the Molony Committee's Report is just the beginning of this very big and important job. We need the help of all existing organisations and some new ones, and we need a big, sustained and persistent effort if consumer protection is to become a reality.
6.30 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, first I would apologise to your Lordships' House because, due to a longstanding engagement in Surrey, I have to leave the Chamber as soon as I have completed my speech. I should particularly like to apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, and to my noble friend Lord Derwent on that account. I now have much pleasure to be the first person on these Benches to congratulate the noble Baroness on her first contribution from the Opposition Front Bench. It was a most interesting speech, full of sensible and practical knowledge, and we all hope that she will make many more similar speeches from that position.
It also gives me much pleasure to be the first from these Benches to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, on his admirable maiden speech. It was the speech of somebody who has had a lifetime of experience in the food trade. It was modest, but it was full of sound practical sense. I may say, as one who has purchased many goods from his chain of stores, that the most vital aspect of this particular chain of stores is that it has two hallmarks—civility and efficiency. I think that a Consumer Council or any other Council would find few complaints about that organisation. It is a great pleasure to have had the opportunity to listen to Lord Sainsbury's contribution, and I am sure that I voice the opinion of the whole House when I say that we hope to have many more such contributions in the future.
The Molony Committee, whose Report we are considering, have been sitting for three years, and no fewer than 472 written statements have been taken from various organisations. I believe that the Report has many admirable facets to it, but I must confess that to me it is in many respects a confusing Report. It tends to be repetitive. However, this is a subject which it is difficult to discuss with any semblance of logic, because, on

681
the one hand, the consumer must be protected from illegal practices and from overcharging and so on, while on the other, the consumer would soon complain if he were told too much as to what he must and must not purchase. Any Report of this nature needs to fall into a happy medium to avoid these difficulties.
I wish to deal primarily and briefly with three aspects of this Report: safety, advertising and the setting up of the Consumer Council. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has already made some admirable comments on the subject of safety. This is a subject of which he has a great deal of experience, and he has made many valuable contributions in regard to the subject in your Lordships' House. I am a member of the all-Party Home Safety Committee, and I think that the Molony Report is to be commended for its writings on this matter of safety, although I cannot help feeling that the Committee have been a little complacent in one or two of their comments. For example, in paragraph 234 they mention that the number of injuries and deaths due to burns in children and old people has declined. I have not the figures with me, and I should not like to dispute what they say without having them, but the figures are still far too high, and I think that that paragraph might conveniently have been omitted.
I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said about the sale of flameproof clothing. One of the difficulties of making such sales compulsory is, of course, that the general public do not like being told what they must or must not buy. But having myself closely examined treated materials, I do not see any reason why their sale should not be promoted more vigorously. The general public can now get flameproof materials at reasonable cost and attractively styled. One difficulty is that the ladies, and particularly the younger ladies, like to be in the fashion; they like to wear attractive clothing. But now attractive clothing, properly treated and flameproof, can be obtained. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Broughton, to whose speech we listened with such interest, is to be congratulated because his large organisation has done so much for the advertising of flameproof and safety clothing. In fact, I think I am
682
right in saying that Marks & Spencer were the pioneers of treated clothing which would at least afford some protection against these terrible injuries.
I should like just to say a few words about toys. Being the father of three young children, I can perhaps declare something of an interest here. Quite often I purchase toys for my young children and for relations and friends. I have been much impressed by the high standard of British-made toys. Some years ago there were a number of complaints about the poor quality of goods manufactured by the British toy industry. I think that a number of improvements have been made here—I refer particularly to the cuddly type of toys, the teddy bears and so on. But there could still be safety improvement—for example, the eyes of some of these toys can be too easily removed and find their way into children's mouths. I am glad to see that the Molony Report has touched on this question, and I hope that the Government will look into it. Then there is the danger of lead poisoning from some of the painted dolls. That is still quite prevalent. It is particularly applicable to dolls, to certain types of wooden cars and other vehicles. But, by and large, the British toy industry has now a most creditable record so far as safety is concerned. There are, however, still a number of imported toys with jagged edges which can cause nasty cuts and which merit looking into in connection with the recommendations of this Report.
I should like to say a few words now about advertising. This business of free gifts, particularly with cereals and toothpaste, has gone much too far. This is particularly true when one has two or three young children in a family, and one is persuaded to buy two or three packets of cornflakes or something, because there are free gifts and there is a quarrel as to which child should have which gift. We all like free gifts, provided that they are free. But as has been said by other noble Lords, these are not free; frequently, the goods are sold at short weight. That may not necessarily be the fault of the manufacturer, because in the processing short weight may result; but we can discuss that further in dealing with the forthcoming Weights and Measures Bill. Then the quality of the toys is usually very poor; they are often made of some

683
kind of plastic material which is probably pretty dangerous, anyway, because it inevitably goes into the child's mouth. I think that either the price should be cut, or the full value of the cereal or other commodity should be given.
Of course we are told for advertising purposes that the firm must advertise. Well, that is fair enough—but not at the expense of the consumer. Then, provided with our tooth-paste we get a biro pen or a toothbrush, usually of inferior quality. Why not provide a properly filled tube of tooth-paste at a reasonable price—if you like, at the full economic price? I feel that these things should be looked into. I know that Government legislation on these matters presents a number of problems, but, after all, the idea of consumer protection has, I think, at least got through to the Government's mind, and these are obvious matters to be investigated.
Finally, in regard to the question of the Consumer Council, on paper this sounds an excellent idea. The consumer must be protected. Frequently he has not sufficient redress against the manufacturers of inferior quality goods or against shops who may tend to employ illegal practices. But I feel that the composition of this Council must be given great care. I should like to quote from an article which appeared in the Sunday Telegraph on November 4, an article written by Jean Robertson. She said:
"The Government is not forced to go along with Molony; I shall, however, be amazed if it doesn't. What a weight of responsibility this has put on the Whitehall selectors. The job of picking the people to make up the first national Consumer Council dwarfs even the tense and awful task of selecting the eleven men most likely to bring the Ashes home from Australia."
My Lords, I think the chances of our cricketers bringing home the Ashes from Australia are a good deal brighter than those of a Consumer Council, unless it is very carefully chosen.
I feel that if the names have not already been selected, consideration at any rate should be given to having at least one housewife on it. After all, it is she who has to do the shopping. I am not saying this is always so, because I, like many other noble Lords, I am sure, frequently do the family shopping,
684
particularly on a Saturday morning. Therefore, I feel qualified to make some of these comments. At any rate, it is to be hoped that the composition of this Council will not have too much of a rigid, Civil Service mind. It must be composed of those who have experience of industry, of the retail and wholesale trades, and also of shoppers themselves so that the members really know something about what is going on. We are not, of course, told very much about their terms of reference. It is obviously going to be difficult to insist that they can be in a position to promote prosecutions because, obviously, certain areas of the country must require different forms of legislation. But if the Government are going to become favourably disposed towards the idea of a Consumer Council—and I think there is a lot to be said for it—the composition of this Council is of paramount importance.
My Lords, in this coming Session the Weights and Measures Bill will presumably come back to this House, so I do not feel that there is any need to say anything about that. But I think that this Report, with all its defects, will be of great benefit to the consumer, because it is at least an attempt to thresh out some of these problems of resale price maintenance and other technical problems which those of us who are laymen find difficult to understand. I hope, therefore, that the Government will take serious cognizance of what has been said to-day.
6.46 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I am sure the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry for providing an opportunity for discussion of this most important subject. I think, too, that I must join in the congratulations that have been extended to her for the remarkable way in which she presented her case. I must also join in expressing my sincere congratulations to my noble friend Lord Sainsbury. My own maiden speech is not so far distant that it obscures my recollection of the occasion, and my heart went out to him when he rose to his feet. But I realised, after he had been speaking but two minutes, that he did not need my sympathy. He made a first-class speech, and, as other speakers have indicated, all the better because it was based upon

685
practical knowledge. I am sure that all Members of this House will look forward with great interest to more speeches from my noble friend Lord Sainsbury.
More than one noble Lord during the course of this debate has given a clear indication of the importance of consumer protection, and, while it is true one can easily exaggerate, nevertheless there are very many traps and pitfalls to catch the unwary shopper to-day; and if Molony has done one thing, he and his Committee have focused attention upon these traps and pitfalls. In this regard I suppose they have served their purpose. They have also given us some indication of the tremendous range of the problem of consumer protection—a startling range indeed.
Many of the aspects of consumers' problems have been dealt with during the course of the debate this afternoon-such as questions of quality and purity of foodstuffs. I might mention, in passing, that there are no fewer than 700 additives to food. I agree that the overwhelming majority of them are probably necessary, and certainly not harmful, but we have no assurance to-day that all are without some deleterious effect upon the human.
We have had reference to a further aspect of this problem, that of the question of just and honest measure. I might quote the comment which the Molony Report make, concerning the matter of weights and measures. In paragraph 8 they say:
"we never doubted that before our Report was completed there would be a new Weights and Measures Act on the statute-book. We have been disappointed about this. If our recommendations are acepted in whole or part, we trust that in the interest of the consumer their implementation will not suffer the monumental delay which has characterised the treatment of the Hodgson Committee Report."
The question of misleading presentation has also been touched upon. My noble friend Lord Sainsbury gave many indications of that. I would point out that many good firms of high repute are being forced into such practices. We have advertising, high-pressure advertising. Although I recognise that the profession itself is attempting to impose certain standards, nevertheless there is an increasing tendency for information to be subordinated to persuasion. Then
686
there are gimmicks—gimmicks which descend to trickery and, in some cases, almost to knavery. Then there are monopoly practices, and the situation where 25 per cent. of the consumer goods which are sold in the market to-day shall have a maintained price. That is the range of the problem, my Lords.
We could lead ourselves to believe that traders are less honest than they used to be. Such is not the case. Nor do I believe that the public are more stupid than they used to be. But the fact remains that we experience to-day far more complicated shopping. We have almost an absence of adequate standards. We have a general shopping public who have little knowledge of the law that could protect them. We are living in a producer's world, where not only have we the pressure of the manufacturer and distributor, but even the vested interests among our own ranks of Labour can press a particular vested interest, without any recognition whatsoever of the consumer as such. I would point out that competition, although it has been mentioned in the course of this debate, is no protection at all; indeed,I would go so far as to say that in many cases competition forces bad practices. The consumer is almost defenceless in this type of atmosphere, and I believe that no single body of law offers complete protection, even with far better enforcement than we have had in recent years. But the consumer needs the law. He needs the protection of the law; secondly, he needs accurate information which will enable him or assist him to judge such products; and, thirdly, he needs the protection of an organisation to give him collective strength, and an organisation that can exercise a continuous watch, because the whole scene of distribution, shopping and marketing is in a constant state of flux.
Now I turn to the question of the Molony Committee and the way they have dealt with these problems. I believe that the task that was presented to them gave an opportunity for the consideration of a vast subject, which could have made possible bold and imaginative proposals. In that regard I think the Molony Report falls far short of our expectations. In the first place, I am at a complete loss to understand why services were ruled out, were ignored,

687
despite the fact that services constitute a significant part, and an increasing part, of consumer expenditure.
Secondly, my Lords, I think that to exclude food and drugs, in spite of the explanation offered, is nothing more or less than a scandal, particularly in the light of recent experiences. We know the harrowing experience with thalidomide, and the Committee knew during the time it was sitting—true it was in Holland—that in 1960 60,000 people suffered serious skin disease through the use of margarine additives. We also know that only recently an investigation was made of certain proprietary drugs, and that, from a medicinal standpoint, 250 of them were found to be utterly worthless. Other noble Lords have made reference to this aspect, and in this particular field, to my mind, lies an overwhelming justification for consumer protection. I fail to understand why it was not considered. I appreciate, and would emphasise, that I do not think any body of law, without becoming too restrictive, can create a situation that will protect the general public absolutely, so far as the drug field is concerned, but at least Molony could have suggested some improvements.
Next, to by-pass price maintenance and ignore the whole fabric of price and monopoly is, to my mind, strange. I would join in the criticism of the Molony Committee, for I believe they were far too easily directed—and I use that word deliberately—by the Minister to exclude activity in that particular field. Molony says that the manufacturers and distributors have a powerful voice and the consumers are voiceless. I agree. The Committee go on to concede that the need for consumers to organise themselves is expressed in the genesis of the Co-operative Movement. It is a great pity that that theme was not developed, and an indication given of the considerable contribution which is made to consumer protection by the voluntary association of no fewer than 13 million people, who are members of consumer organisations in this country. I would agree with the Molony Committee when they go on to make reference to the fact that, in the vast field of consumer need which it would be impracticable to cover by legal safeguards, consumer education should fill
688
the gap. I would make the suggestion that consumer education, apart from using all the instruments of popular and public education, deserves a place in the curricula of schools. I would suggest that household budgeting, selective buying and the like, are just as important as the teaching of carpentry in schools; and, certainly, they are as important to the potential wife or, for that matter, to the husband, too.
I turn now to the question of the Consumer Council. I know I shall be told that other noble Lords have made reference to the fact that this is a first step. It is a very timid step. The Molony Report has dismissed, almost with contempt, suggestions that were made for the establishment of a Ministry, or even a separate Government Department under a Minister of State, who would have the responsibility for coordinating all aspects of consumer protection. They dismiss that idea as grandiose. They go on to acknowledge the need for Government departmental co-ordination, but, strangely enough, they leave it to the Consumer Council to discover whether and in what respects that could be done. I would suggest that no Government should delegate to some other body their responsibilities for the administration of Departments of State.
The full responsibilities that are likely to be placed upon the Consumer Council can be borne only by a powerful organisation; and unless it is powerful it is doomed to failure. To give some idea of the financial backing of the Council's power, the total funds available in the first year will be £125,000. The Molony Report makes reference to the fact that the Consumers' Association are only touching the fringe of the job they have to do, yet their income is £300,000. This Council, if set up, will need to challenge Government Departments, and the appointments, we note, are to be made by the President of the Board of Trade while the Treasury will pay the bill. I only hope that the Council will find themselves completely immune to any lobbying that may be done by comercial or industrial interests which they may have need to criticise.
I have also very grave doubts, my Lords, about the suggestion that the Citizens' Advice Bureaux should undertake

689
this local work. Tributes have been paid to the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, and those I would accept. But I doubt whether this organisation could, with the small grant that is being offered, perform such a service. I doubt whether it possesses the co-ordination or uniform service. I would mention, in passing, that there are 93 towns in Britain having more than 30,000 population but no citizens' advice bureau. To me, the suggestion smacks rather of "passing the buck". I would rather have seen the services of the local authority called in. I know that there are difficulties here, and I know it is said that local authorities already have many responsibilities. But at least this would achieve a unification of the many services in relation to consumer protection which have already been undertaken by local authorities, and it would also, I believe, introduce a greater sense of public accountability. I believe that that was important to the Molony Committee, because they themselves chided the Consumer Association for not having a more democratic control; but at least if the local authorities accepted this measure of local responsibility there would be more public accountability.
To turn to another aspect of this matter, I noticed that in another place, I think on Monday, the statement was made that there would now be no need for a Bill to bring the Consumer Council into being. If my memory serves me aright, that is somewhat different from the statement that was made in the gracious Speech, and I am wondering whether or not both Houses will have an opportunity of discussing these matters related to the creation of a Consumer Council. I think that both Houses would be entitled to ask what are the precise terms of reference; What is the scope of work; how is the money to be provided; What precise staff will be available, and who will compose the Council. I do not know how both Houses are going to get that sort of information unless there are facilities for discussion of this whole matter.
It has already been indicated (and on this I would put a specific question to the noble Lord who will be answering for Her Majesty's Government), I think, that there will be no legislation this Session to deal with some of the pro-
690
posals made by the Molony Committee. How does that tally with the Government's previous declaration on this particular matter? Because we have all had too much experience of Reports coming along, of suggestions being acclaimed on all sides and then being carefully buried and forgotten.
There are one or two other aspects of the Report, my Lords, on which I should like to make comment. The first is credit trading and hire-purchase. Seeing that I have been criticising the Molony Report so far, I think I ought to take this opportunity to pay them a compliment. While credit trading and hire-purchase do serve a useful need, the Molony Report draws attention to the many abuses; and one would say that the field in which the buyer should really beware is in that field of hire-purchase which is outside the scope of the Hire-Purchase Act. I saw some figures recently which startled me (and I think they will startle the House) in dealing with this question of the effect of stimulated trade. The Commissioners of Prisons, in their Report for 1959—and I quote:
"…noted a striking rise in the number of prisoners received from county courts. They were: for 1951. 499; 1957, 2,148; 1959, 4,821; 1960, 5,057".
The Commissioners of Prisons go on to state—and I quote:
"These prisoners come, we have reason to believe, largely as a result of failure to pay commercial debts, of which the bulk will have been incurred as a result of hire-purchase agreements".
That extract gives an indication of the result of high-pressure salesmanship—not in all cases, but in many cases. Reforms are needed, and with many of the reforms suggested I would agree, particularly the idea of giving the power to have second thoughts over a period of 72 hours. At the same time, I feel that this should not be restricted merely to door-to-door sellers. I agree that there should be a statement of interest rates if advertised, and that it should be stated on an annual basis. But I do not think the problem is confined solely to one of falsely-expressed rates. I think it is the failure of the consumer to be clearly cognisant of the total interest charged. I think that is just as necessary, and that steps should be taken to achieve that.

691
I turn now—and I am conscious of the passage of time—to the merchandise marks law. Molony agrees that this legislation is not adequately enforced, and that there should be a co-ordinating body to ensure uniform administration. It is difficult to believe that the proposed Council would have the authority to achieve anything in that direction. I believe that the Molony Committee is right: that the main body of legislation in this field requires simplification. But I would also agree (and I am sure my noble friend Lord Sainsbury would agree with this) with the recommendation to improve the defences of the honest trader; he should not be held responsible for false trade descriptions ascribed to goods by someone else. I think there are helpful precedents in this regard in the Weights and Measures Bill and in the Food and Drugs Act, 1948.
When we come to the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, there are some really remarkable inconsistencies. In the first place, Molony says—and I quote from the Report:
" We think that the best interests of the consumer require free competition "—
I agree—
"and that imported goods should not be placed under any disadvantage in contributing to the stimulus of the market-place"
It goes on:
"We do not regard as a real consumer concern the ability of the consumer to discriminate against imported goods on patriotic, political or personal grounds, and we feel under no obligation to facilitate this type of discrimination."
In view of those statements and of other statements in the Report, one would have expected the Committee to declare that the 1926 Act serves no useful purpose, so far as consumer protection is concerned. However, I believe that the whole circumstances in connection with their judgment on the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, are unsatisfactory, because no attempt was made, so far as I am able to see, to secure the views of people other than those with vested interests in discriminating against foreign produce. I could produce lists of goods that are now governed by marking orders—skewers, pokers; even fly-swatters—where consideration of the real interest of the consumers in the origin of those goods is completely lacking. If the purpose of the Act is
692
to enable the consumers to make a choice between home and foreign goods, it should be reviewed. I think it is quite cynical to suggest, as the Molony Report does, that the marking orders governing foodstuffs, should be enforced by local authorities, yet those on dry goods are enforced at discretion. I am at a loss to understand the reason for that. The marking orders in the Act of 1926 are not being adequately enforced and the law is falling into contempt. Enforcement might have the effect of multiplying prosecutions, with no benefit to the consumer, and I am amazed that Molony did not give attention to this particular point.
My Lords, I have dealt with a few points of interest to me. I would end by stating that at least one great virtue lies in the Report; that it helps the general public and ourselves to focus attention upon these important problems. I hope also that it will stimulate the Government to action, because consumer protection should be not merely in the interests of justice but also in the economic interest. A very great improvement could be made in the whole field of distribution with tremendous advantages to the nation itself, and if the Report inspires action in that particular regard it will have served a useful purpose.
7.12 p.m.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I intend to speak only on Chapters 14 and 15 of the Report; that is to say, those chapters dealing with the Merchandise Marks Act. I hope the noble Baroness will not consider me discourteous if I do not refer to her admirable speech, to which I listened with interest, but I usually rise in this House to talk about something rather technical; and this evening is no exception. I therefore absolve the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, from replying, if he will assure me that my remarks will be given consideration when legislation is proposed in this field.
As soon as this Committee was appointed I noticed that no person had been appointed to the Committee who had some knowledge of the law of industrial property or, so far as I can see, the Jaw of trade marks and similar law. The result has been that the recommendations in this field have gone

693
somewhat astray. I think it is very necessary that these recommendations are criticised, so that no unfortunate stops should be taken when legislation is put forward. The Merchandise Marks Act is, in my view, a most important weapon for use in consumer protection. We cannot ensure fair trading without just laws which axe adequately enforced.
There are two grounds, in particular, on which I part company with the Committee. The first is that they have not suggested there is any criticism of the fact that merchandise marks proceedings are heard by magistrates' courts or juries. I shall deal with that in detail later. The second recommendation, which I cannot understand, is that the right to prosecute for infringement of registered trade marks, which runs parallel to the right to sue for infringement of registered trade marks, should be retained. The remedies under the Merchandise Marks Act are prosecution before magistrates or before a judge and jury. These cases are decided on the evidence and are not conclusive against third parties. They are not binding on any other court, and no injunction can be granted. So the accused can commit the offence again and again, subject, of course, to an increased penalty for a second offence.
Another very serious difficulty is that the choice of venue in which prosecution can be conducted is very wide. Let us suppose that it is desired to prosecute somebody who is distributing goods all over the United Kingdom. Wherever a packet of his goods can be bought there can be a prosecution. The result is that a prosecutor can choose his venue, can choose the bench of magistrates whom he desires. He can go round until he gets the bench he thinks will be in his favour. And, as noble Lords know, magistrates, by their nature, vary enormously all over the kingdom. I know some cases (and I believe the case I shall mention is one) where the prosecution went from court to court failing to get a conviction until they arrived at a stipendiary magistrate who convicted the defendants.
That case was the "Non-brewed vinegar" case—a very curious case. The Ministry of Food had licensed numerous people to sell a product
694
under the name of "Non-brewed vinegar", though they did not, in so many words, give them permission to use that name. The brewers of genuine vinegar then brought proceedings under the Merchandise Marks Act against these people. Now, an ordinary bench of magistrates, when an order by the Ministry of Food is brandished before it showing that the Ministry of Food have licensed the making of this stuff, is unlikely to convict. Prosecutions went without success, until they met a stipendiary magistrate. He said: "I don't care a rap for the Ministry of Food. This is a false trade description". There was then an appeal, on the grounds that the decision was against the weight of evidence, to the Divisional Court, and the Divisional Court decided that, although they might not have decided that way themselves, they would not interfere with the magistrate's decision. I must say I think that is a very unsatisfactory way of obtaining a decision which is important to all of us—for about 300 people in that case were producing this commodity.
An even more curious case recently was that of "Spanish Champagne". In that case, the Costa Brava Wine Company were prosecuted at the Old Bailey for using the name "Spanish Champagne", on the ground that it was a false trading description and that champagne was wine that came only from a small area in France. The jury acquitted the company, and the effect of this was shattering on the Continent, because the French immediately thought that a court in this country had given permission to Spaniards to use the word "Champagne" in reference to their wine in this country. It is almost impossible to explain to a foreigner that if the case had been taken to a stipendiary magistrate the next day he would have had a perfect right to find the other way. It has not done our jurisprudence any credit at all. Of course, there is a happy ending to this. The champagne growers got together, went to the High Court and were granted an injunction, which is a much better remedy, because if the Costa Brava Company did it again they would face sequestration.
The Merchandise Marks Act, 1953, made it a new offence to apply false or misleading trade descriptions to goods,

695
as to fitness for purpose, strength or behaviour. And the Committee, in paragraph 638, suggest that there should he added to this the words
"or any other physical characteristic whatsoever".
I have had experience, which probably few people have had, of the working of this subsection even without that very wide qualification, because in 1954 I was junior counsel in a very curious case which took place in a town near London. A firm who were selling homeopathic prophylactics for cows against mastitis were prosecuted by the county council for putting a false trade description as to the fitness for purpose of the goods. They had, in fact, put a rather wide claim as to the properties of these goods, but the case was really based on the fact that certain people had induced the county council—and I say this advisedly—to fight this case in order to extinguish homeopathy in the veterinary world. Of course, this is a respected branch of the medical profession, which is carried on by about 400 practitioners in the medical, as distinct from the veterinary, would.
There was no evidence as to fact. All the evidence given was as to opinion, and the poor magistrates were absolutely overwhelmed by this. They found that, in effect, homeopathy is all rubbish, and they convicted the company. There was a happy sequel. On appeal to the Appeals Committee, which was made up of highly-qualified legal men, the Committee said, quite correctly, that there was a complete conflict of evidence of opinion honestly given, and therefore the prosecution had not proved its case. The sequel to that was that the county council had to pay £500 in costs.
I do not think that this case was fair either to the magistrates or to anybody else. Paragraph 679 is headed "Laxity in enforcement", and paragraph 682 states:
"We have no doubt that the proper course is to lay the enforcement duty on local authorities".
Is it fair in these complicated cases that a local authority should be faced with a bill for £500 if they fail? Is it surprising that they are somewhat loth to take the risk of failure? And this is not an isolated case. In a case before
696
the Greenwich magistrate some years ago, when it was suggested that the phrase "California Syrup of Figs" was a false trade description, the costs awarded against the prosecution were £250. So it is not an uncommon occurrence in these complicated cases.
I put forward various tentative suggestions. The first one is that a local authority should be entitled to an indemnity in costs from the Board of Trade, if the Board approve proceedings being taken by that local authority. Secondly, local authorities or the Board of Trade should be given a locus to sue in the High Court for an injunction to obtain a more authoritative decision on such matters as Spanish champagne and non-brewed vinegar, which are important to the public generally, and for that matter in complicated cases, subject to the same indemnity as to costs, the Board of Trade in every case being permitted to decide which court would be more appropriate, if and when they sanction the indemnity for costs. Thirdly, I agree with the Committee in their recommendation in paragraph 651 that it is desirable that the Board of Trade should have power to define terms in use in trade. However, I think that this would not go very far, as they indicate in paragraph 653.
Now I turn to the question of trade marks. In 1958, your Lordships repealed a Statute, 34 and 35 Henry VIII, chapter 8. It is "An Acte for the Preservation of the Ryver Severne". That may seem to have nothing to do with this subject, and indeed the provisions which your Lordships repealed had nothing to do with the River Severn. They provided a method of proceeding against persons who shovelled garbage into harbours. The reason why it was repealed was that there are many better ways of enforcing a sanction against people who do that disgusting act. In 1887, certain provisions were placed in the Merchandise Marks Act to deal with the false application of registered trade marks. This is exactly the same as infringement, with certain minor exceptions I need not mention, and most of us who practise in this branch of the law think that those provisions are about as out of date as the provisions of the Act for the preservation of the River Severn.
Therefore it is surprising that the Committee seem to think that these ought to

697
be preserved. The criminal proceedings for infringement of registered trade marks are very archaic, but in paragraph 577 it is recorded that the Committee had received what is described as "expert legal criticism" of the 1887 Act in its application to registered trade marks, and it was said (almost certainly by the late Mr. Hugh Fletcher Moulton, one of the greatest authorities on trade marks) that
"In an infringement action there are available broad defences more generous to the defendant."
I note that the word "broad" is used. I say that those defences are defences for the better achievement of justice. They are defences which were put in by Parliament in 1938 and before to see that justice was dispensed. Those defences do not exist in the Merchandise Marks Act.
I give your Lordships one example. It is a defence under the Trade Marks Act that the defendant has been using the mark prior to the plaintiff's registration of his mark. That is not available in the Merchandise Marks Act. Therefore, I was staggered by the recommendation in paragraph 614. It says:
"But it appears to us that such infringements are likely to be deliberate and capable of being particularly damaging to the consumer and we conclude (that the public should not be deprived of the protection of the criminal law in this respect. The consumer can be misled by the misuse of a well-known trade mark such as 'Terylene' as much as by misuse of a purely descriptive word such as 'silk'."
Paragraph 615 is headed "Subsidiary trade mark proposals". It begins:
"Our study of general trade mark law has not proceeded beyond the point reached in the previous paragraph."
My answer to that is that if it had they certainly would not have made the recommendation in the previous paragraph. The Committee then go on to say, and in my view quite correctly, that they regard Section 3 (1) of the Act, which provides that a particular description which is a registered trade mark may nevertheless still be false, as a valuable safeguard for the consumer.
A trade mark is an indication of trade origin. The consumer does not need to be protected if the quality of the goods sold by an infringer of the registered trade mark is the same as that sold by a registered proprietor. In paragraph 21
698
the Committee have defined consumer protection as
"those measures which contribute directly or indirectly to the consumer's assurance that he will buy goods of suitable quality appropriate to his purpose."
At the risk of being attacked by the owners of the registered trade mark "Terylene", I say: how many con sumers care who has made the Terylene which is woven into their garments so long as they get the quality which they expect? Terylene is an extremely bad example of a registered trade mark. If these provisions are continued in the new Act, other trade marks will, of course, be covered and not only those such as Terylene. Terylene is as much a trade description as silk, and the fact that it is a trade mark is quite irrelevant. If these provisions are continued, they will cover such trade marks as Daz for detergent, or Swan for ink, or Smiths——
A NOBLE LORD: For crisps.
LORD CAWLEY: No. For motor accessories, or Johnsons for wax. I think your Lordships will see how barren this recommendation really is. I cannot help pointing out that the noble Lord, Lord Auckland (he is not here at the moment), talked somewhat lightly about Biro pens, but I think he must have meant ballpoint pens.
I cannot deal with all the points in these chapters. There is no doubt that the Committee were very much overworked, and in fact they gave 55 full days to considering the various matters in this Report. But I hope that the Board of Trade will not accept their recommendations as to merchandise marks without further careful inquiry; and I would especially draw their attention to the ironic recommendation of paragraph 610, in which the Committee state:
"We think however that legislation… should be contained in a single enactment and stated in language as plain and simple as modern draftmanship can provide."
Your Lordships will remember the Copyright Act which was passed recently. I can only say that the drafting of that Act, which was the last piece of important industrial property legislation passed through this House, is such that it is giving a lot of trouble already to practitioners. I think that the Committee might have substituted for the words

699
"modern drafting" such words as "that used in the Sale of Goods Act, 1893". That Act was not drafted by a Parliamentary draftsman, but by a retired Judge from India, and it is still an example of what good, plain drafting can be.
In conclusion, I do not want it to be thought that I am damning the findings of the Committee on merchandise marks in toto; far from it. There is much in chapters 14 and 15 with which I agree, but there is no time to deal with it. I feel that, considering the enormity of the task the Committee have been faced with, they have done very well.
7.35 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Molony Committee complained that there was some apathy among the consumers towards their deliberations, and as I look across the House I cannot help feeling that the same sort of apathy exists in the Party opposite. Certainly the number of them here now is very different from the massed array that we had when we dealt with the last Weights and Measures Bill, when the Government, with the Whips, made it perfectly safe for the Government to proceed, irrespective of the case that was put up by the Opposition. But in spite of the thin House and the rather late hour, I think I can say that we have had a very good and constructive debate.
Certainly the foundation of the debate was laid by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry—and who in your Lordships' House could better have made the case for the consumer? If there are any qualities that the Government require on the Consumer Council, I hope they will look in the direction of my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry; but I hope also that she will not accept any nomination, because in the course of the next year we shall need as many guns to fire from this side of the House as we can get. However, the qualities of tenacity and attack that are required are certainly there in my noble friend. Speaking of guns on this side, I am sure we all very much welcomed the maiden speech of our noble friend Lord Sains-bury. He spoke with knowledge and clarity, and I am sure it was a speech that many of us will look back upon with pleasure.
700
Is consumer protection necessary? There are many who say that competition, greater education and knowledge make it possible for the consumer to receive a square deal. One hears from time to time serious allegations of faults in materials, in articles and in services. But I think it should be said that we in this country in some of our retail shops, and particularly the stores which are represented by three noble Lords this evening—namely, Lord Marks of Broughton, Lord Sainsbury, and Lord Peddie from the co-operative—set an example not only to this country but to the Europeans into whose Market we may be going. I do not think there is any doubt that the retail offering in this country, particularly for the working class and the middle class, is infinitely superior to anything that can be found on the Continent, with the exception perhaps of Switzerland.
But having said that, I believe there are many loopholes for shoddy merchandise, shoddy service and sharp practice. As I listened to Lord Marks of Broughton speaking about quality control and giving a competitive price to the customer, I could not help feeling that there is another side to the story. The noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Sainsbury are able to produce quality and price because of their large organisations and large turnovers. There are many other organisations, particularly the smaller retailers, supported by the wholesalers, who, in order to compete with the price of these big stores are forced to reduce the quality of their own merchandise. I personally have seen cases where the supplier finds out that he can reduce so many threads in the weft or warp in order to save the extra ½d.a yard or the extra 6d. or 9d. on the shirt. Therefore, the public may be well served by these larger stores and chain stores, but they can be open to the purchase of shoddy materials by force of nature from other stores. I should not want it to be believed that it is only in the bigger chain stores that you can get first-class merchandise, because that is not true. I wanted to show that, in this element of competition to produce an article, there is a limit to which you can go, and to make any other gain you may have to reduce your quality, and in the end, of course, the consumer will lose out.

701
At this stage of the evening I do not wish to say a great deal about the Molony Report. A good deal has been said this afternoon, and we shall wait with a good deal of anxiety for what the Minister will tell us. But I think I should say to the Minister that we require some action on this Report. In fact, I think the country expects some action. The noble Lord will remember—because he took part as a Back-Bencher in the debates on the Weights and Measures Bill—that whenever we raised any question of consumer protection we were told to wait for the Molony Report. Now I understand that in another place another Weights and Measures Bill has been produced, similar to the one we had here and certainly with very little advance. Therefore, we have been led to believe that the Government intend to take some action on the Molony Report. But the Minister on Monday evening said that legislation was not required for the appointment of a Consumer Council. It would rather appear that the basis of the recommendations in this Report is going to be shelved. I hope the noble Lord, when he replies, will say that this is not the case.
There are a certain number of reforms that could be done very quickly, and I think with the support of all Parties—reforms that would not require a great deal of legislation. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who mentioned the question of hire purchase and the fact that, under the present legislation, anything in excess of £300 is not now covered by legislation and the protection is not available. It means that in a year perhaps 2 million or 3 million cars are being sold on hire purchase without any protection under the present legislation. There is a good deal of other goods that are sold that are well above the present limit. That would not require a great deal of legislation.
Again in the case of hire purchase, in the last Session a friend of ours in another place endeavoured to obtain what was called the "cooling off" period—the 72 hours' break between the signing of a hire-purchase agreement in a home and before it becomes operative and binding on the family. I believe on that occasion the Government resisted the Bill. Their built-in majority successfully destroyed the Bill. But I think it is now
702
generally accepted and supported by the Molony Report that there would be great advantages, not only to the purchaser but, I think, also to the hire-purchase companies, if this "cooling off" period was to be brought in. If an Act of Parliament is necessary, I do not believe it would require much more than one or two clauses to effect that change. I am sure I am speaking for my friends on this side of the House when I say that if the Government were to bring that Bill forward we would give it all our support and would speed it on its way.
It is up to the Government to produce this Bill. So far as I gather, if it came from a member of the Opposition, even with this Report, we should not he likely to get the support of the Government or, at least, if we did not have the support of the Government, it would be unlikely that the Bill would get through Parliament because of time. Therefore, if the Government wish to create the appearance that they are now, within a few months of a General Election, wishing to become the protectors of the consumer, now is their opportunity to act, and we shall be very willing to assist them. The noble Lord may smile that I am suspicious. The noble Viscount, Lord Mills, on many occasions last Session said that I was a very suspicious man. I have spent all my time in this House in the Opposition. I have looked across at the Government day after day. You cannot really blame me for being suspicious.
May I remind them that in 1948 a Labour Government appointed the Hodgson Committee to look into the question of weights and measures? They produced a Report in 1951, and there was then a Conservative Government. We had to wait until 1960 before we had legislation. I suppose it was owing to the absence of the Housewives' League, which disappeared very conveniently in 1951. But the Government waited a very long time, and even the legislation they proposed did not go quite as far as the Hodgson Committee recommended.
We have this Report, and there is much that could be done. Perhaps the consumer is in some way a free agent, but one must take into account the manner in which the household is bombarded by advertisements—it used to be in the newspapers and on the hoardings, but now it

703
gets into your fireside. In fact, my youngster now uses "Pepsodent" because he is rather fond of the song. He wants to know "where the yellow has gone" since he has used "Pepsodent". An advertisement will be exaggerated, and most people will accept it, and are rather amused by it. But there is a good deal of advertisement which is deceptive, and very little appears to be done. My noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry drew our attention to the new Advertisement Council and this new code which they hope the advertising industry will accept. It is not greatly different from the code that the I.T.A. tried to establish and, as we well know from the various television debates we have had in this House, the I.T.A., with their big authority, have been unable to curb many abuses that have taken place on their screens.
I am quite prepared to give this new authority, this new Council, a chance. What if it fails, as the other organisations have failed? Are the Government going to take action on it? I think the public should feel that, if abuses continue, the Government will step in and give some protection. There are many other points, but what we really want to know to-night from the noble Lord is this. In the Commons there is the Weights and Measures Bill. There is the Government's intention to appoint a Consumer Council, that will have very little power; it will act mainly by persuasion, with no "teeth". We shall have the Weights and Measures Bill and the Consumer Council, but there are a number of very special proposals, and it is too late to mention them all, in this Report.
If the main proposals of the Molony Report could be implemented this Session and go on to the Statute Book with the Weights and Measures Bill, and if we had a Consumer Council that was a great deal stronger than my noble friend anticipates it will be, I am quite sure the position of the consumer would be very much strengthened. But unless we get the legislation proposed in the Molony Report together with the Weights and Measures Bill and a strong Consumer Council you will not give the full protection that the consumer needs and is entitled to. Therefore, I beg the Government—and I know Parliamentary
704
time is short—to see whether it will not be possible in this Session: to bring legislation forward to support the main proposals of the Molony Commission.
7.51 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I give my personal thanks, as well as the Government's thanks, to the noble Baroness for introducing this Motion?—my personal thanks because I enjoy the way she states her case with such vigour. She may remember that I, too, before I became a gamekeeper, the other day, was a poacher. Her Majesty's Government are also very grateful to her because we are particularly anxious that this consumer protection should be discussed, before the next steps are taken. We believe it is most important. What the Other place is going to do I do not know, but we owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lords who have spoken for the help they will have given us in coming to decisions. The noble Baroness must be rather pleased with herself, because she is a pioneer in this matter, as we all know, and she has obtained a debate with very strong speakers. She has got on her slide a remarkably able maiden speech from a remarkably able man on this subject, and I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, on his speech. She has also got, from this side of the House, my noble friend Lord Marks of Broughton, who is also an expert; so that we can say we have had proper advice from all sides of the House.
Before I come to the main part of my argument I should like to quote certain paragraphs from the Molony Report because the background of this question is perhaps two-sided and not so one-sided as the noble Baroness perhaps indicated. The paragraphs from the Report that I should like to quote are, first, paragraph 895, in which the Committee say—and this is borne out by what the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said:
"We assert our firm belief in the probity and honourable standards of the great mass of British manufacturers and traders and their desire to maintain this country's historic traditions of quality and accurate description."
Secondly in paragraph 39, they say:
"The most potent influence operating in favour of the consumer is the desire of the retailer to retain his custom and to preserve

705
the general good name of the establishment: and, it might be added, the retailer's sense of decency and morality which readily comes into play without any threat of resort to law."
I am sure that is right, and so we must not exaggerate that question. I am equally certain that the British housewife is not a fool, and most housewives do not want protecting very much. But the fact remains that there are certain trade practices, not necessarily amoral ones, but often due to laziness in marking and so on, which makes it absolutely necessary that in certain respects the consumer must be protected. Let us get this fact quite clear: the duty of Her Majesty's Government is not necessarily to accept the whole of the Molony Report as it stands, but to see that 'the consumer is protected while, at the same time, the trader is not 'unnecessarily interfered with.
May I put the main part of my argument in somewhat of a narrative form, because it will answer most of "he questions that have been raised? I thought I knew some of the questions that the noble Baroness was going to raise, so I devised the main body of my speech to answer her; and, in fact, it answers other noble Lords, too. When I come to the end of what I may call the narrative part of my speech I shall try to deal with any points I may have left out.
I should like first of all to say that it must not get about that nothing has been or is being done for the consumer at the present time, because I think it is also necessary to consider the background. I should like to point out a few of the more notable landmarks in the development of consumer protection. I must say (hat the development of this protection is due mainly to quite a handful of pioneers, of whom the noble Baroness is a leading figure. One of these landmarks was the setting up in 1955 by the British Standards Institution of the Advisory Council on Consumer Goods, or the Consumer Advisory Council, as it is normally called. This Council is composed of representatives of women's national organisations, and of individuals of standing with experience in retailing, wholesaling, market research and information services. This Council, I should like to make quite clear, has done a great deal to press for standards of labelling, legislation and other measures in the consumer's interest.
706
They have undertaken the comparative testing of consumer goods and services, of which the results have been published in their magazine Shopper's Guide, which is distributed to their associate members. The Council has also operated a complaints service for their members. Many of the Council's functions will soon be taken over by the new Consumer Council, but it deserves honourable mention as the first body of its kind with wide-ranging interest over the whole consumer field.
The British Standards Institution has also been advised since 1951 by the Women's Advisory Committee, which consists of representatives of the leading women's organisations in the country. Their aim has been to ascertain the views of the members of its constituent organisations and to submit proposals to the B.S.I. for the preparation of new standards and to review all draft British Standards of interest to women. Its members have brought experience and devotion to these tasks, and I understand that the B.S.I. will continue to have the benefit of their advice after the Consumer Council is set up. They have informed the President of their intention to give the Consumer Council their full co-operation, and the B.S.I., of course, has itself played a key rôle in recent years in devising standards for consumer goods, particularly in matters concerning safety and so on.
An event of great interest was the formation in 1957 of the Consumer Association, Limited. The Association was founded by a small band of enthusiasts. The enterprise touched off a ready response, and their publication Which?, first published in 1957, which is largely devoted to reports on the comparative testing of products, now enjoys a monthly circulation of over 300,000. More recently we have seen the spontaneous formation of local consumer associations all over the country. Oxford was the first off the mark on this occasion, with, rather surprisingly, Cambridge second. There are groups also in Carlisle, Dagenham, Hampstead, High Wycombe, Nottingham, Slough, Swindon, Watford, Weybridge, and Teeside, Tyneside and Wearside; and most of these are known to be active. Half of them produce their own publications. They undertake a variety of

707
activities of local interest and concern and it seems to me that local people, when they know of their activities, should spread the knowledge. Both the Consumer Advisory Council and the Consumer Association have given these groups advice and encouragement.
Then there are the British Electrical Approvals Board for Domestic Appliances, which tests domestic electrical appliances for safety; the Advertising Standards Authority, which has been set up by the advertising industry with the object of enforcing the British Code of Advertising Practice—and I shall say a word more about that when I deal with the noble Baroness's own questions; the Retail Trading Standards Association, which has maintained a crusading spirit in promoting a satisfactory quality of consumer goods; there is also the fidelity scheme which was launched last year by the Motor Agents' Association. I need not go into the details of that scheme at the moment. In commending these various enterprises I wish in no way to play down the responsibilities of the Government, but I do not share the noble Baroness's often expressed view that the Government have been tardy or unsympathetic in recognising the swelling body of interest that has grown. The Government fully supported the setting up of the Advisory Council of the British Standards Institution, and since 1957 they have made a special contribution to the financing of the British Standards Institution in respect of their word on consumer protection.
Much has been done also to protect the consumer in matters of safety. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is devising compulsory standards for car seat belts which is all part of the same consumer protection, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Office has decided that regulations governing the colour coding of flexible cords attached to electrical appliances should, if possible, be made. There are certain delays about agreement with foreign countries. It is as well to get agreement if we can. The Government have been active also, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Broughton, said, in the field of food and
708
drugs legislation, which regulates the sale of food to safeguard the health of the consumer, to ensure that he knows what he is buying and to protect him from being supplied with food which is not of the nature, substance or quality he has asked for. The Government in this important work are advised by the Food Standards Committee.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Peddie was the first person to mention what are rude words in this House—weights and measures. We had a lot of that subject, and it will be coming back to us in due course in this Session, we hope. The Molony Report describes weights and measures legislation as part of the basic vocabulary of consumer protection. The Government have got through the Second Reading in the other place. It is all part of consumer protection.
As regards this actual Committee, when it was appointed I believe the noble Baroness thought rather poorly of the appointment. In a debate in another place she criticised its membership on the ground that most of those concerned were not experts in the subjects they were charged to examine. I myself would not be entirely in favour of a committee composed of experts. I have the impression that she is a little happier now but not entirely satisfied, because much of it is very controversial. I should like to pay tribute on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to the hard work, public spirit and skill of those who compiled the Report. For years to come it will stand as an authoritative document and work of reference. I hope I may be allowed to speak for your Lordships in expressing gratitude to Mr. Molony and his colleagues, one of whom was a member of your Lordships' House, Lord Geddes.
That is the general background. I should like to turn now to the Report itself. Perhaps I may be permitted to run through some of its main recommendations. Its central recommendation was that a Consumer Council should be set up
"to ascertain and review the problems experienced by the consumer, and to devise and advance the means of resolving them."
Linked with this was the organisation of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux with financial assistance from the Government,

709
strengthened so as to improve the service which they give to the individual consumer who is in trouble. May I pause there and talk about these two bodies first? The Government are at the moment studying all these recommendations, but it is too early for them to be able to announce any decisions other than the actual setting up of the Council. The establishment of the Council does not require legislation. The terms of reference are not yet settled. We hope that the functions, responsibilities and composition of the Council will be announced fairly soon. But it is quite wrong to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, says, that this has no teeth. The terms of reference and the Council's powers are not yet decided, nor is its composition, but every word your Lordships have said to-day will be taken into account when arriving at both the functions and the composition.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, who asked what was the method of dealing with powers, and so on, as regards public debate, and the answer is that it does not need legislation, but, through the usual channels, of course, debates can be arranged. The noble Lord cannot expect me to say whether debates will be arranged, because I do not arrange the Business of this House.
As regards the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, the Committee's recommendations on the rôle of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux in consumer protection work are now being discussed by the President of the Board of Trade with their National Committee. We are waiting for these discussions to come to an end.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this point? I do not know whether he shares my view, but I feel that this question of the local advisory service and the enabling of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux to carry it out, if so decided, is of greater urgency than the Consumer Council. Does not the noble Lord realise that to set up the Consumer Council without this organisation to help them beforehand is really to court trouble?
LORD DERWENT: Of course when it is decided what is to be done they must in fact be set up at the same time, because the parent body, as it were, will be the Consumer Council. So much for
710
the Council and for the Citizens' Advice Bureaux.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, I wonder whether he could answer the problem I posed. I indicated that there are 93 towns that are not covered by the work of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. What is the intention of the Government in regard to those?
LORD DERWENT: That will be one of the jobs of the Consumer Council; that is clearly one of the jobs they will have to tackle.
May I say a word about legislation. The Committee made numerous recommendations about legislation. On hire purchase they proposed that the protection of the 1938 Act should apply to all consumer transactions, that there should be a "cooling off period" after a hire purchase agreement had been signed at home as a result of door-to-door salesmanship, and that the hirers right of redress should be strengthened. They recommended that the Merchandise Marks Acts should be amended and consolidated in a newly entitled enactment, in particular that the definition of "trade description" should be enlarged, that the definition of applying a trade description should be extended so as to catch false or misleading descriptions contained in advertisements, and that the duty of enforcing this law should be laid on the larger local authorities. That is their recommendation and it is quite a mouthful to consider. The amended Act would also include provisions empowering the President of the Board of Trade to define trade terms and to compel the labelling in any prescribed fashion of consumer goods. They also recommended more legislation in amendments to the Sale of Goods Act by which certain implied conditions of sale would be made irrevocable. Finally, they recommended that powers should be taken to regulate seals of approval.
In addition to these legislative proposals the Report addressed numerous suggestions and admonitions to trade bodies, industry and indeed to Government Departments. I would just add this as regards taking up time; the last chapter of the Report lists 214 "Principal Conclusions and Recommendations"

711
covering sixteen and a half pages of print. I know everyone wants to get everything done at once, but can I say something further about this legislation? The Molony Committee considered the Committee's recommendation relating to hire purchase deserved first priority after the Consumer Council is set up, and after that should follow an amendment of the Merchandise Marks Acts, and next amendment of the Sale of Goods Act. That was the order they recommended.
The Government accept in general this assessment of the relative order of priorities, and are accordingly giving particularly close attention to the Committee's recommendation on hire-purchase law as it affects the consumer. That, from the legislative angle, is the first thing that Her Majesty's Government are considering. There will not be an opportunity this Session for a Government Bill on hire purchase, but this is traditionally a field in which Private Bills often take over. In view of the programme this Session there is no possibility of a Government Bill to introduce this matter. A good many inquiries have still to be made.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, from those remarks am I to understand that if a Private Bill were introduced, perhaps in this House, and received the approval of the House, the Government would find time in another place for it to be out on to the Statute Book?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the noble Lord really cannot expect me to say anything about the business in another place. But he might try it. Obviously, we can promise nothing, and there might not be time. Naturally, it depends on how involved and how controversial it is. As regards the merchandise marks legislation, there are the far-reaching recommendations of the Committee which, if they were accepted, would in effect involve a completely new piece of legislation. There is no question of amendment here; it would be entirely new legislation. It needs detailed study, and Her Majesty's Government are of the opinion that it should not be embarked upon in too much of a hurry. The same applies to any amendment in regard to the Sale of Goods Act. The Molony Committee did not consider that
712
there was any great hurry in regard to those two matters.
The Government have made what I hope will be regarded as a good start by promptly announcing their acceptance of the recommendation that a Consumer Council should be established and, as I have already said, that does not require legislation. There has been a good deal of debate of all kinds about the powers and functions of this Council and its composition. The Government have taken note, and will take note after this debate, of the many divergent views that have been expressed. Whatever decision may be taken on these matters—and I hope we shall be able to make an announcement very soon—the Government are fully convinced that this Consumer Council will mark a major advance in what the noble Baroness in her pamphlet has called "the Battle of the Consumer". With the Molony Committee, we plan to give it the supreme position in consumer affairs, and hope that it will win leadership, authority and respect. It is going to have full Government support in whatever action it wants to take. I have no doubt that the Council will have much to occupy it. The Molony Committee have already pointed out some of the fields to which the Council might pay attention. I have not the slightest doubt that it will find many other directions for its activity.
I do not think I need say anything else about the actual Report. I should like now, rather belatedly, to start dealing with the questions that were raised. I should like to deal first with those of the noble Baroness. She had certain things to say about advertising. The first thing she asked, I think, was whether the Advertising Standards Authority could initiate an amendment of the British code of advertising. Of course the Board of Trade are not responsible for the Authority, which was set up this year by the advertising industry itself. But it is my understanding that while the Authority could not itself bring about an amendment of the code, there is no reason why it should not propose to the Code of Advertising Practices Committee any amendment which in its view is desirable.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: Of course not; anybody could do that.
LORD DERWENT: I think that is in fact what they would do. But the Board of Trade are not in control of them. This Authority was set up by the industry itself. There was one other matter I should like to mention about advertising. What steps Her Majesty's Government can take are fairly complicated, because this is a most important subject. In addition to the Molony Report the Government have the Reports of the Pilkington Committee on Broadcasting and the Royal Commission on the Press. All three of these Reports involve advertising, and I think it is only reasonable to ask that the Government's decision should allow for the dovetailing of all three Reports, and that the Government should be given some time to consider the matter.
There was mention of the sizes of women's clothes. Of course this does not apply only to the industry in this country. I know about this question—I have come across it in other ways; it also applies to foreign clothes which are sold in our shops. The noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong, but I think the industry itself is in fact trying to do something about this. It is a slow business, but I think they have got quite a long way towards agreement—or so I have been informed by members of the industry; I hope it is true.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks of Broughton, made the point that the consumer must look after himself. That is a point I made at the beginning. Of course in certain cases the consumer cannot look after himself or herself. The noble Lord spoke about research, which the noble Baroness also mentioned. I think he took the view (and I must say that I am inclined to agree with him) that research is best done by the big firms, and that the knowledge acquired should, if possible, be spread. This is one of the things about which we are most hopeful from the National Productivity Year, which, incidentally, has started in various parts of the country. We hope that this sort of information will be passed on to the smaller firms. I know of cases where it has already been done. I think the only other question the noble Lord raised was about food, and that I have already dealt with in my speech. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, asked so many questions that
714
I do not quite know how to deal with them.
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, in his maiden speech to which we have referred, spoke particularly about free gifts. I do not suppose that one can do away with them altogether. Sometimes they probably do not affect what is being sold because the value of the free gift is so small. But this is a matter to which the Consumer Council will have to give attention. It is for them to give attention in the first instance to these matters. If legislation is required in any way it will be the Consumer Council which will ask for it.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, told me that he would not be here for my reply, and I told him that I was going to be rather rough in regard to what I said about him. I thought his was the most destructive speech I had heard for a long time. He took the view that the Consumer Council was bound to be a failure, without knowing what its powers were going to be or of whom it was going to be composed.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in fairness, I think he was basing the idea of its power on what the Molony Committee had recommended.
LORD DERWENT: I have already said that this matter of the power of the Consumer Council is one for Her Majesty's Government. We know what the Molony Committee reported and recommended; but we also know what your Lordships have said to-day, and it is a matter for Her Majesty's Government. To assume that this Council is going to be a failure is, I think, purely destructive.
Turning to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, perhaps I may expand a little on safety, which I think was the main line that he took. First of all, there is the question of kerosene heaters and so on. The regulations made under the 1961 Act and based on the current British Standard 3300 of oil heaters were laid before Parliament on May 4 of this year and came into force on June 1—that is, between the submission of the Molony Report and its publication. There has been some criticism about the delay in promulgating these regulations. I think the noble Lord had that in mind. Bearing in mind that the Oil Burners

715
Standards Act came into force in 1960, the Molony Committee commented on this in strong terms in paragraph 230. The delay, quite frankly, was due to the complexity of the subject and the need to consult the many interested organisations.
The basis of the Consumer Protection Act is that regulations made under it are to create legal obligations, civil and criminal, enforceable in the courts. One of the consequences of this is that the code of requirements laid down in regulations must be precise. There were many technical points in the British Standard which had to be elucidated before they could be put into a sufficiently precise form for a court to administer. The task of drawing up the statutory instrument was a complicated and difficult one. I do not think it was just an excuse. It had to be very precise, and there were a great many consultations.
Then I think the noble Lord raised the question of the colour code of flexible cables. I have dealt with that. That has been held up for a short time in order to try to obtain foreign agreement on the matter.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, could I ask this question? That is the burden of my objection. Most of these wrongly coloured cables are of foreign importation. It should be our job to say "We will not have them at all; we do not want to confuse the consumer." We do not need foreign Governments to agree about that.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think the noble Lord will find that there will probably be agreement, in spite of what he has said; otherwise, I agree, we shall have to move on our own.
I think it was also the noble Lord who mentioned the flammable code. In 1959 the Board made proposals under the Fabric (Misdescription) Act, 1913, prescribing the tests required before textile materials can be described as "non-inflammable" or of low flammability. The publicity given to the danger of burns from flammable clothing has resulted in a welcome reduction in the number of fatalities. I refer here to actual publicity in the newspapers, and so on. There is available on the market
716
a wide range of materials and made-up clothing satisfying the requirements of the Standards laid down in these regulations. It is to be hoped that consumers will take advantage of the safety offered by the use of these materials for both the very young and aged who are most liable to this particular hazard.
I think the other safety question was raised by my noble friend Lord Auckland (who is not now here) on toys. Since the Molony Report was published the British Standards Institution has issued a code of safety requirements for children's toys and playthings, which deals with this matter. In any case, the use of celluloid for toys has virtually ceased. In their Final Report the Committee recommended that these requirements of the code should now be supported by regulations made under the Consumer Protection Act. This recommendation is at present being considered by the Home Secretary.
My Lords, the next noble Lord who had matters to raise was the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, who suggested that schools' curricula should include "How to buy things". I suggest that that should be taught in the home—but I know what he meant.
LORD PEDDIE: Then may I suggest the noble Lord deals with what I meant?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think the noble Lord was not talking so much about the children, as about trying to teach manufacturers and other people about these things. I believe that is what he had in mind. I have answered, I think, his question about how to deal with the powers of the Consumer Council. Then he raised the question of services and food and drugs; he asked why they were excluded by the Molony Report. They were, in fact, excluded by the Committee, but they are not excluded from the consideration of the Consumer Council; and undoubtedly these are matters which will be dealt with by the Council. The Consumer Council will also deal with matters of education to protect the consumer.
My Lords, I find it easiest to answer my noble friend Lord Cawley, because he has said that he does not require a reply. But I can assure him that I have already made arrangements: he was kind enough to give me advance information and everything he has said has

717
been carefully taken down, and will be used against us later. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I think, raised principally the question of legislation. He asked why we did not get on with it. As I say, the necessary studies for hire-purchase legislation have already started, but we shall not have time for a Government Bill this session.
My Lords, I do not know if I have answered all your questions. I shall have another look tomorrow. As I say, Her Majesty's Government are grateful for this debate, because they were anxious to have your Lordships' views; and those views will be seriously considered.
8.24 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, obviously I should never seek to trespass further than I have to upon the kindness and patience of the House. We have had an excellent
718
debate, and I would thank the Minister of State for his reply. I am sure he will realise that I disagree with a good deal of what he had to say. However, this is not the time to air that disagreement, and I would thank him very much for what he has said. Before I sit down, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. I appreciate that in saying that, I have no greater seniority here than the noble Lord—though I did manage to get in first. At any rate, I should sincerely like to add my own congratulations on his speech. My Lords, as I say, we have had an excellent debate. I now beg leave of the House to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past eight o'clock.