HL Deb 14 November 1962 vol 244 cc605-25

2.46 p.m.

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 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 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 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- 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.

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 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.

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 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, 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.

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. 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 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'…". 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 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 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. 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 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: 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.