TRADING STAMPS BILL (Hansard, 2 July 1964)

HL Deb 02 July 1964 vol 259 cc772-806 772

§ 6.25 p.m.

§ Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.

§ Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

§ On Question, Motion agreed to.

§ House in Committee accordingly.

§ [The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]

§ BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD
had, on Thursday last, moved an Amendment to add to Clause 3 ["Redemption of trading stamps for cash"] the following new subsections: (6) Upon delivery of a trading stamp to any person (in this and the next two following subsections called the holder') in connection with the sale of any goods or the performance of any services there shall enure to the holder the right either—

(a) to redeem that stamp (subject to the provisions of this section) for the cash value shown thereon, or

(b) to exchange that stamp for any goods properly described to the holder as being exchangeable therefor;

and any condition or term of any contract or offer which purports to enable that right to be extinguished without the oral or written consent of the holder shall be of no effect. (7) In the last preceding subsection 'goods properly described to the holder as being exchangeable therefor' means goods—

(a) which have been described in any announcement or advertisement as being exchangeable for stamps of the kind delivered to the holder, or

(b) which have been the subject of any declaration or allegation, made to the holder by any person concerned in the transaction in connection with which the holder's stamps were delivered, to the effect that they were so exchangeable.

773 (8) At the time of delivery to the holder by a supplier of any goods in exchange for that stamp as provided for in subsection (6)(b) of this section of this Act, there shall subsist between the holder and the supplier a contract for the sale of such goods within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, and to which the provisions of that Act shall apply.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
The Committee will now resume discussion upon Amendment No. 27, the Question upon which, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50, was left undecided on Thursday last.
Does the noble Baroness wish to speak again?

§ BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD
No, not at the moment.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
I wonder whether it might be to the convenience of the Committee if I said a word at this stage, because there were a great number of points raised in the debate upon this Amendment last week, and it would certainly be of great assistance to me if I could try to pin-point some of the matters which your Lordships wish to see dealt with, by means either of this Amendment or something like it. I am bound to say that I am not altogether clear what the specific points are at the moment, and I would ask your Lordships' indulgence if I run quickly over what was said. If I then try to put the issues to the Committee, so that we can have a further discussion about them, it may crystallise the matter and make it clear.
First of all, may I deal with the point of the Sale of Goods Act. My noble friend Baroness Elliot of Harwood made a tremendous speech upon this, among other things, at the end of the Committee stage last time, and I should greatly like to know whether she has come to a conclusion upon this point, and whether other noble Lords have come to the same conclusion or a different one. The points at issue seem to me to be these. You have to weigh up whether you want at this stage a complicated Amendment, which I think it would be, which would attract suitable provisions (they would not all be suitable; but some of them might be) out of the Sale of Goods Act and put in a proper legal arrangement to deal 774 with a sale for the purposes of that Act, with a buyer, a seller and a price.
Then, secondly, one must face the fact, that having done that, one is content with a situation whereby, as under all the Sale of Goods Act provisions at the moment, the trading stamp company could quite easily contract out of the whole thing, thereby nullifying all the protection which the Act might have provided and which the Amendment in this Bill would seek to provide. What protection would this give? I ask this because I want to know what your Lordships think about it. I suspect—and my noble friend Baroness Elliot of Harwood referred to them with approbation—that the good companies would probably play fair anyway. I think that the bad companies might easily contract out. Therefore, I am afraid that the attraction of the Sale of Goods Act as it is to-day would probably come to nothing at all.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
May I interrupt the noble Viscount? On the contracting out, what actual process would they use? Would it be possible to distinguish between the good company that did not contract out and the one that did, so far as the consumer is concerned?

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
do not think so. It is comparatively simple. It would require something written, perhaps on the catalogue or some other document constituting the scheme, simply saying that "it is a term of this scheme that Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act does not apply", and you take it or leave it if you want to go into the scheme. I understand that it is as simple as that, and therefore if a company chose to do it it could do it, and there would be nothing that anybody could do to counteract this action, because one would then have to accept the scheme as such or not at all.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
Would the noble Viscount not agree that the attention of the stamp collector would be clearly drawn to the fact that the company has contracted out of what is one of the recognised obligations under the Sale of Goods Act?

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
I should have thought it could be done in such an obscure way that the ordinary 775 consumer would not have taken the point with that degree of ease. But be that as it may, I should like your Lordships' views on this. However, if you wish to stop this, of course it might be done by some form of limitation of the powers to contract out or prohibition of it. This is precisely the Molony Committee recommendation, and is something which my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn promised was going to be looked into in the whole field of the Sale of Goods Act, and not simply as applied to trading stamps. Is it right to put something like that in this Bill ad hoc? My noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood thought not on the Committee stage. Or is it better to leave it until the whole matter is dealt with and, by taking my noble friend up on his assurance that it will be dealt with, see that trading stamps—

§ LORD CHORLEY
Would the noble Viscount agree that, if we do not have it in this Bill, when the Molony proposals are carried into law they will not bite on this; whereas if it is in the Bill now, when the Molony proposals become law they will bite on it and we shall have solved the problem?

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
I do not think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Chorley, has read the assurance given by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn last Thursday on this particular point. This was covered and there was an assurance given that there would be a new clause in the new Sale of Goods Bill.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
Not quite.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
I think so. I think that it is in col. 419 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 259 (No. 89)]:
I can give the assurance that it will be considered in connection with the consideration of the Sale of Goods Act as a whole,

§ LORD SHEPHERD
Yes, considered.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
I do not know that my noble friend could have gone further than that. This is an assurance which he has given, and I should be content to abide by it as being given in every good faith. I should hope to take him up on it if, when the time comes, it was not done.

776

§ LORD GARDINER
Is the Bill to be introduced this Session?

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
I should think not.

§ LORD GARDINER
Is the assurance worth anything?

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
This depends, of course, upon what happens next Session. However, that is the issue, as I see it, on the point of the Sale of Goods Act, and I should he grateful for the views of the Committee on this matter.
To go on to the other part of the noble Lady's Amendment, the first provision about redemption in cash need not be discussed any further, as it is already perfectly well covered in Clause 3. Therefore, the remaining point is a statutory contract for redemption of goods. The noble Lady—and I say this in no form of criticism of the noble Lady—set out within a few lines of her speech two different types of contract of this nature. It seems to me to be very important to find out which of these two your Lordships would prefer. Perhaps I could quote them very simply in the noble Lady's words. The first proposition is this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 259 (No. 98), col. 422]: If the consumer wants to collect for an object I think it should be an obligation on the company to try to supply that object. The second proposition was a few lines later, and was different. The noble Lady said that, when the collector has collected the correct number of stamps for a given article, there is an obligation on the company to have that article in stock, or to provide a good excuse why it is not in stock, or to provide the next best equivalent to it. There are two propositions there. Either you create the contract at the time when the stamp collector gets his first stamp, and thereafter the company is bound to provide him with the goods that he wants; or you feel that that could not be done and wait until the collector has the right amount of stamps or right number of books for the given object. The first of these two propositions seems to me to have a certain number of difficulties. To start with, it is not a hire-purchase type of transaction. If the collector has not collected 777 the correct number of stamps for the goods, it seems to me wrong that there should be a contract at that stage by which he can insist on having those goods. It would inevitably have to be deferred until the stamps had been collected. Secondly, what evidence, or what possible machinery, could there be at that stage for the stamp collector and for the company to pin down the object that the stamp collector has in mind? He might not want what he originally decided on when it came to the point.
It works the other way round, too. If a contract for that article was going to he created at that stage, would it not also be binding on the stamp collector to take it when he collects enough books? Would it not be possible for the stamp company to enforce it against him, as well? This might not be at all a desirable thing. I do not think this would be at all easy to work when collection of stamps spreads over a long period of time, during which all sorts of things might happen—new types of goods coming in, prices changing, and different sets of circumstances occurring at the end of a few years when the books are full and the collector is ready to go and get his article. Those are practical difficulties which would have to be dealt with in drafting a contract at that stage.
The only other alternative I can see is to wait until the stamp collector has the proper number of books for the article which he chooses. Say that it is two books. At that moment you could say that there should be a contract for anything in the catalogue which can be acquired for two books. This would meet the point of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, at any rate to a certain extent. I do not think you could say that there should be a contract at that stage for any specific goods, because how would you decide from the outside what goods the stamp collector had in mind? It could be done only when he had gone to the shop or done some other equivalent act and actually chosen the particular article. I do not think one can do it in a vacuum. The difficulty about this is that in most cases the terms of a trading stamp scheme in itself provide a contract which has exactly this effect. I do not think they all do, but 778 the majority of them would. There is an offer, there is an acceptance, and I think that there would be a contract for a collector to go along and say "I have two books. You advertised certain articles that I may obtain for these books. Here they are. May I have the article?". I think that this in most cases would be a contract, and to make it statutory might add nothing. I hope that that is a synopsis of what was said, and I should be grateful if your Lordships would let me know which of those points, if any, you would like me to try to get into this Bill.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
I am sure we are all grateful for the manner in which the noble Viscount has refreshed our memory of the debate of last Thursday. I am quite sure that those of us who were present that evening are gratified to see there are now more noble Lords present in the Chamber to help us come to a decision in this matter. I do not think there is any doubt that in all quarters there is some uncertainty as to the effect of the Bill in the protection of the consumer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, when moving this Amendment, made perhaps the main point when saying that the stamp collector at present has no right at all to the stamps. It is a fact that in many of the catalogues and the conditions that go with them it is clearly stated that the stamp holder has only one right—and that is to place those stamps in the book; that the stamps, the book in which they are collected, and the catalogue remain the property of the issuing company throughout. It may well be that under Clause 3(5) of the Bill in the case of cash redemption we are in some ways giving a right to the stamp collector in the sense that the clause itself gives them a right to redeem the stamp for cash. Subsection (5) makes void any agreement that may be entered into by the stamp company with the stamp collector if it were to take away this power for cash. So in regard to cash redemption, the position of the stamp collector is satisfactory.
We now come to the question of goods. Here again—I repeat this, for it is important—in the case of the presentation of stamps to the stamp company for redemption, the stamp collector has no rights whatsoever—none. I was attracted 779 to subsection (8) which is the subsection dealing with the Sale of Goods Act. It may be that this Act, which has been in existence for many years, has only marginal effect in that it can be avoided by the contracting out of the merchant. But it is a fact that the trader, if he wishes to contract out, has got to go through the particular physical act of so doing. At the present moment, however, the stamp company does not have to do anything, until the moment at which the stamp collector presents his stamps in order to redeem them for goods.
I should like, first, to speak on a very narrow issue, as to what goods shown in the catalogue the stamp collector may receive. These catalogues are produced in very fine form, with good paper and good photographs, and in some cases with definitions—but not always. It may well be that the catalogue has a photograph, shall we say, of a "Hoovermatic" washing machine which many housewives would like, and it may be obtainable for a very large number of stamps. What happens, however, when the housewife sends the stamps to the stamp company and says, "I want the Hoovermatic'"? She may anticipate from the catalogue that she will be receiving a new "Hoovermatic". What happens if the company sends her a rebuilt, secondhand "Hoovermatic"? Will she have any right to change her mind and say, "I asked for that. It does not come up to my requirements. It is not what I believed I was going to get. Therefore, I wish to have something else"? Will she have that right, or will the stamp company say" We supplied you with exactly what we offered"?
We know of the problems and disappointments that arose from newspaper advertisements. In fact, we had to legislate to control the advertisements. I am not sure whether or not that was done under the Sale of Goods Act, but we certainly legislated to protect the consumer from receiving goods which did not meet with what the advertisement would have led the applicant to expect. I appreciate the difficulty of asking the noble Viscount to accept a part of the Amendment or the whole Amendment—certainly, it would be difficult within the Rules of the House to be asked to accept half an Amendment—and this is why I respond very much 780 to the noble Viscount's suggestion that we should try to get clear in our own minds what we should like to see. Certainly, I should like to see some provision which would give the consumers protection. Perhaps it can be done within the Sale of Goods Act. That may be the only vehicle that we have for drawing attention to this matter.
It may be that the wording is imperfect, but the stamp company would have to take a physical act. It would have to state in its catalogues that it was contracting out of the requirements under the Act. I should have thought that that was better than to leave the public, perhaps, to think that the goods in the catalogues were offered under the Sale of Goods Act, when they were not. I should have thought it was infinitely better, even if the wording is imperfect, to put it in so that if the company wished to change its relationship it would have to take a physical act. We appreciate the tremendous difficulties under which the noble Viscount is working, owing to the shortage of time, but I hope that he and his noble friends who are supporting this Bill will consider this matter very seriously, because I think there are many dangers here, and the consumer might be placed in a position where he felt he had had a rather bad deal.

§ 6.45 p.m.

§ LORD SAINSBURY
Once more I must declare an interest, but I should like to say this in support of my noble friend Lord Shepherd. I have received many letters from housewives complaining of their bitter disappointment—some with very strong criticisms of certain stamp companies—when they have tendered their stamps for a certain article which has been advertised in the catalogue only to be told that the article is no longer in stock. And in some cases they have not even been told that, but have been given a different, an inferior article. I think that the Consumers' Association, would say that they, too, have received a large number of complaints from disappointed people, but have been unable to do anything about them. I am no lawyer, and I appreciate the difficulties; but I do feel that even the perhaps inadequate protection of the Sale of Goods Act would be of some help in protecting the housewife against this, in some cases, sharp practice.

781

§ TILE EARL OF SANDWICH
I apologise to your Lordships for coming late into this debate, and I did not hear the opening statements. But from listening to what I have just heard in the last few minutes from the other side of the House, I should have thought it quite clear that a purchaser of goods by redemption of stamps could always investigate the situation, where he or she was doubtful about something in a catalogue, by going to one of the redemption centres and seeing for himself or herself. If customers were to buy the grocery goods of Lord Sainsbury's great establishment as pigs-in-a-poke, no doubt their wild imagination would disappoint them greatly when the goods arrived. But as they, fortunately, go in very large numbers to his grocery establishments and see them for themselves, they are constantly reassured. Anybody who is doubtful about whether the glossy covers in the catalogue do not quite "hit off" the actual article, can go to the redemption centre and see for himself.
I do not think that this Amendment will really fit the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, did not actually state whether the example he gave—of a shopper who wanted a "Hoovermatic" machine and who found, when the stamps were redeemed through the post, that the machine which arrived was a rebuilt second-hand affair—would be caught by the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Baroness. It may be that there is full provision for that sort of thing in Section 1(1) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893—I do not happen to have the Act by me. But if the case which he has made out is not covered by that subsection, then it certainly is not included in any of the wording in the rest of the Amendment. I think the noble Lord is conscious of that and, if he wants to catch up with that situation, some fresh Amendment will have to be put down.

§ LORD AIREDALE
I do not find the first part of what the noble Earl said very reassuring, because there must be, I suppose, a number of stamp collectors in towns about the size of Knaresborough or Richmond, in Yorkshire. I do not suppose there are gift redemption centres in Knaresborough or Richmond, and one could hardly expect a stamp trading company to open a gift shop in small 782 towns like that. I do not know where one has to go from those towns. I should think one would probably have to make an expedition to Leeds for the nearest gift redemption centre. Having saved up enough stamps for a "Ken-wood" mixer, a lady might be quite prepared to go off to Leeds to collect the mixer; but I do not think she would be prepared to go to Leeds just to have a look in advance: to see whether there really was a "Kenwood" mixer in the shop in Leeds corresponding to the "Kenwood" mixer in the glossy catalogue which she had seen in the grocer's shop.

§ BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD
I am not going to delay the Committee, because I am going to withdraw this Amendment. However, various points of some substance have been made, and perhaps they could be looked at by the noble Viscount. I should like to thank him very much for the summaries which he made at the end of the debate last Thursday which, as your Lordships know, was very late. I do not want to press anything very strongly beyond the question of some protection under the Sale of Goods Act. I have been told, and perhaps my information is incorrect, that under that Act as it stands (and, like the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, I do not have a great knowledge of the Sale of Goods Act) one could cover the stamp-trading companies, and such people. It could be done.
The noble Viscount says that it would be very easy for them to contract out. I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that if they say they are contracting out, that would at any rate warn people that they could not make any claims under the Sale of Goods Act, and they would therefore know it was going to be no good for them. It is a weakness, I agree, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who promises to review that Act and bring it more up-to-date, will in the future be able to make it more effective in this particular respect. think it is something which the consumer should be granted, in view of the importance of the principle of that Act to consumers who are already covered, or can claim to be covered, by its terms.
The other point with which the noble Viscount did not deal is this curious business about the stamps not belonging to 783 the person who has, in fact, earned them by purchases. It seems to me, in all fairness, that that is something which should be included in the Bill. If the stamps that I earn by my purchases are not mine, whose are they? They are the stamp company's, I suppose. But I have obtained that discount through my purchases, and I have paid for those purchases. It seems to me a little difficult to say that the stamps are not mine. The noble Viscount could no doubt explain why they are not mine, but I think they should be. Those are the only two points in which I am interested, but I hope that, perhaps on Report stage or at some future time, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will be able to satisfy us that the Board of Trade really intends to make a serious contribution to this subject by bringing the stamp-trading interests under the Act when it is revised. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
Would the noble Lady, before she withdraws it, allow the Committee to have a little more time on it?

§ BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD
Certainly.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
Perhaps the noble Viscount would like to answer the noble Lady's question first.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, would rather precede me.

§ 6.54 p.m.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
I expect the noble Viscount would like to reply to all the speeches in one go, rather than have several bites at the cherry. I must say that those of us who heard the debate last week very much appreciate the efforts which the noble Viscount has made, and I echo what my noble friend Lord Shepherd has said. It is a pity that the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, was again a little behind time and did not hear some of the noble Viscount's opening remarks. We are all agreed that this particular Amendment is not suitable, and the noble Baroness never thought it was. She does not claim to be a skilled Parliamentary draftsman; and this matter has caused difficulty even to such a skilled lawyer as the noble Viscount—and I really think the noble Viscount 784 must be a pretty skilled lawyer, because of the clarity of his explanations. When he tells us it is exceedingly difficult to draft something in this Bill, then I absolutely accept that. None the less, there was some gleam of hope in his speech. He rather asked the Committee to express views on certain matters. I agree very strongly with the noble Baroness—and, surely, everybody must agree—that it is a ridiculous situation that the stamps do not belong to the person who holds them, if this is in fact so.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
I do not think that this necessarily matters. It may be indicative of the fact that there is no contract, or it may mean nothing at all; but it would be cured, I think, by the creation of some sort of contract, if that is the way your Lordships' Committee would like it to be done. If a contract were created, I still do not think it would matter whether the stamps belonged to you or not.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, but it is an indication of the extreme peculiarity—indeed, the ridiculousness—of the situation that there is no contract nor do the stamps belong to the individual who thinks they belong to him.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
There may be.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
There may be, and that is the point I am coming on to. It is apparent that in a situation of this kind Parliament or the Government ought to try to provide safeguards of the kind that are provided in many other fields, and which have been provided not merely in the last few years but in the last fifty or more years. It is obvious that some sort of contract needs to exist. I must say that I am attracted by the idea, taking into account the practical side, that such a contract should exist, should be created or should be deemed to exist at the time the individual hands over the completed stamp book. One would very much like it at the time he got the stamps, but this is obviously not practicable. Customers may hold on to them for years. If, therefore, a contract could be created at that time, this would seem to me to be a satisfactory advance. 785 It would also make it more possible, perhaps, to apply at the same time certain sections of the 1894 Sale of Goods Act. I am not going to press the noble Viscount too far, but he will recall that in Clause 1 certain sections of the Companies Act have been applied. I think it is obvious that certain parts of the Sale of Goods Act would not be suitable: nor am I clear whether it would be possible to draft a clause in the form that not only is a contract deemed to take place but a sale, also, is deemed to take place at such a time, because I am not sure that otherwise it is a sale. It presumably is not. It might be that, in those circumstances, if it were deemed to be a sale, no reference to the 1894 Act would be necessary at all; it might be that the words "for the purposes of the 1894 Act" would suffice; or there might be a reference in relation to particular sections only—those relating to conditions and warranties; for instance, Section 10. If this could be done, I think there would be a very real advance.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Shepherd and other noble Lords that the fact that it is open to a stamp company to opt out is not an insuperable difficulty, or is not one that is decisive. It seems to me that if the stamp company has to opt out in some way, they have to opt out in precise terms. I do not know where this disclaimer would be. It would presumably be on the catalogue—or, rather, either on the catalogue or on the stamp book itself, because, after all, the stamp book would be the document in the possession of the customer or consumer. This is a point on which possibly my noble friend Lord Gardiner would be able to help, if the noble Viscount feels unable to clarify it.
I should like to know how this disclaiming has to be done. On a railway ticket or an airline ticket it appears, perhaps, on the ticket. In the case of a cash transaction, I am not quite sure. After all, the Sale of Goods Act makes a cash transaction a contract for the purposes of that Act. I am not quite sure where this disclaimer comes in. It may be that perhaps I ought to know. Equally, my noble friend Lord Sainsbury might be able to help on this point. It is quite important to the precise consideration of 786 this matter, and I therefore hope that we shall not shrink from applying the Sale of Goods Act if it is possible, even though it is equally possible for people to disclaim. We all agree that the good stamp company does not need this—although even the good stamp companies have gone in for some rather odd things, and it may be that some of the complaints mentioned by the noble Lady have related to stamps from even good companies. But I hope that we can get this right.
The problem would not exist, of course, if we had been able to write into the Bill a proper cash value—and this is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, made— because in the last resort people can always ask for the cash. But we have been unable to do this; and I think this is the best hope of doing so. I am sure the Committee—and I hope we are all in agreement on this—will welcome any effort that the noble Viscount can make, both to apply the Sale of Goods Act and to establish a contract at some stage, presumably in relation to the current catalogue at the time the goods are handed over. People may say that that will be of no value because at any moment the companies can alter the value of their stamps in relation to the catalogue.
It is astonishing how totally unprotected people still are on this point. At an earlier stage there were some attempts to establish the prior rights of the stamp holder and various speakers in your Lordships' House and in another place asked: "Why should their claims come before that of the trade creditor?" But at the moment they do not come anywhere at all. It is still open for the stamp company, instead of writing down its shares, to write down the value of the stamps, provided that they do not go below the actual cash value; but they may be only 25 per cent. of what individuals had thought was the real value. This is, even then, a limited protection: for there is no protection against the company which is forced, through bad trading or management, into a situation—or does it wilfully—where it cannot meet its obligations. Such a company can still opt out.
However, we are reckoning that most of these trading stamp companies will go on, and the catalogues, one hopes, will be valid. People will notice if new catalogues come along with infinitely less value; and there is, in any case, the effect 787 of competition—which seems to provide quite a good protection. I wish we could do more; and I would only add that I think the Government's attitude over this has been extremely feeble. It must be apparent to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that much more thorough legislation is necessary. None the less we congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who goes on battling, for the way he has taken notice of our criticisms.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
I am grateful to the noble Lord and to other noble Lords who have spoken, because I think my task is a great deal clearer. At any rate, I have the views of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, as to when the contract is created. The stage he suggests, I think, might be practicable. Earlier on in the process I did not think it could be done even at that stage. I might say to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, that I do not think it will be the panacea he is seeking; because if you start collecting in this year and do not collect enough stamps until 1970 to redeem the article of your choice it is perhaps not surprising that it is not the same as it was at the beginning of this year. We cannot reasonably rule out the freedom of the stamp company to bring in new articles, to bring their stamps scheme up to date, and, if necessary, to change their prices, if they are forced to do so.
I am grateful to noble Lords for the greater clarification I have had on this issue. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, wishes to attract some provision other than the sale of Goods Act; because I am not certain that the point he raised is covered by it. If he can give me specific references, I will look at them. However, I understand that the noble Lady is to withdraw her Amendment, and I have now a considerable amount of information to get my teeth into before the next stage, and I undertake to have a thorough look at this.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
Does the noble Lady wish to withdraw her Amendment?

§ BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD
Yes, I wish to withdraw.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

788

§ Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 4 agreed to.

§ 7.6 p.m.

§ VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, after Clause 4, to insert the following clause:

§ Advertisements referring to value of trading stamps

§ " .—(1) It shall be unlawful for the promoter of a trading stamp scheme, or for any person carrying on a trade or business in which a trading stamp scheme is operated, after the coming into force of this section to issue or publish, or cause to be issued or published, an advertisement in any medium which conveys, or purports to convey, the cash value of any trading stamps—

(a) by means of a statement which associates the worth of any trading stamps with what the holder pays or may pay to obtain them, or
(b) in terms which are misleading or deceptive.

§ (2) A person contravening this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.

§ (3) For the purposes of this section an advertisement issued by way of display or exhibition in a public place shall b treated as issued on every day on which it is so displayed or exhibited, but in proceedings brought by virtue of this subsection in a case where the display or exhibition began before the date of the coming into force of this section, it shall be a defence to show that the defendant had taken all reasonable steps to secure that the display or exhibition was terminated before the date."

§ The noble Viscount said: I hope that at least this Amendment will bring a little joy into the life of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, because this does, I hope, meet the third of the criticisms that were put forward in the Consumer Council pamphlet on the deficiencies in the Bill. This new clause will prohibit the misdescription of cash value of trading stamps in any kind of advertisement. The examples of this are well known to us all. There is the "£1" voucher with which the front of the document I have referred to is well and truly embellished and there have been other examples. One was given by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, in his speech in the Second Reading debate. But, at any rate, I hope that this Amendment will stop this practice.

§ It will make it a criminal offence for a promoter of a trading stamp company or a retailer or any person operating a scheme, in other words the person in 789 control of the trading stamp scheme, to issue one of these advertisements. But I would ask the Committee to note that the clause prohibits only advertisements describing the cash value of trading stamps either in terms of the amount expended to obtain them or in any other terms that are misleading or deceptive. I think this will cover misleading advertisements, but will not prohibit the proper advertisements. The penalties will apply only to the promoter and not to the advertising medium, whatever it may be, through which the advertisement was put out. I think this is fair, because I feel the person we want to deal with is the promoter. I think the penalty is the proper one and is in line with other penalties for similar offences in other Acts which have already been passed by Parliament.

§ I would draw the attention of noble Lords to two further points in subsection (3). The first part provides that there would be a continuing offence if one of these advertisements were left up. In other words, every day it stays a new offence is committed for which a new fine is imposed. The third subsection also provides a transitional provision which will enable the promoter already displaying such advertisements to protect himself if they are beyond his control, if when the subsection comes into ford he is not in a position to withdraw the advertisements. If he shows that he has taken reasonable steps to stop them he will have a defence under this particular subsection. I think that that is right because withdrawal may have gone beyond his control at that stage. Apart from the these technical provisions at the end, I hope this clause will be precisely that for which the noble Lady is asking and that it will be acceptable to the Committee.

§ BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD
I welcome this clause. The noble Viscount is right. This is the first time I have seen something come forward on this Bill which I think really will be of some protection to the consumer. As he knows, I had in an earlier Amendment mentioned a number of practices indulged in by the stamp companies which I thought were misleading and should be made impossible. It seems to me, on listening to the noble Viscount, 790 that in fact this is going to happen under this clause, and I have great pleasure in supporting what he said.

§ LORD AIREDALE
I wonder whether the word "associates" in the first line of paragraph (a) is really intended to be "equates"? I ask this because, if the word "associates" remains, this will knock out my Amendment No. 30 before we even get to it. This is like having the linesman calling "Fault!" before you even strike the ball.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
I am very willing to look at that point. If I have succeeded in displacing the noble Lord's Amendment, it may be that I have been even more cunning that I thought. I do not wish the word "associates" to do anything here, in the context of the display of a notice in the shop, but to explain the terms of the scheme and how many stamps one gets for the money spent. If there is any other effect I will see that something is done about it. On the other hand, I do not think that the word "equates" would be right, because it is ofen done in a far less accurate way than that word would require, and it is still extremely misleading. Therefore, this is a matter I should like to look at again. Subject to that, I hope that the Amendment may be accepted.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
Obviously we welcome this Amendment. I have only one question. Is the noble Viscount satisfied that this covers the most glaring case, that of the voucher which purports to be something else? Can this be called an "advertisement" in the terms of the Amendment?

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
I am advised that that is so.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 5 [Display of information in shops]:

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
had given Notice of three Amendments to subsection (1), the first being after "operated" to insert ("(a)". The noble Viscount said: I think that it might be convenient if, with this Amendment, I speak to Nos. 33 and 36, which are part of the same point. Their purpose is to ensure that whenever a trading stamp promoter issues a gift catalogue a copy 791 of the current edition is available for inspection by customers in all shops that operate under that stamp scheme. This is the second time that an attempt has been made to put an Amendment of this type into the Bill. On the first time, in another place, the Amendment was found to be faulty. So this is a matter which has been under way for some time.
There are one or two points I would make about what is provided by these three Amendments, taken together. The main point is that it is not made compulsory to issue a catalogue or display. This is because there is, for example, one scheme which only redeems in cash and therefore no catalogue is necessary. There is also the type of scheme which redeems in goods in the shop itself; and here again no catalogue is necessary, because there they are in the shop for all to see. So there is no requirement that there should be a catalogue in all cases. But if a catalogue is issued, these three Amendments require that it shall be on view for the people who are taking advantage of the scheme. I believe that this would be an improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 3, line 27, after ("operated") insert ("(a)").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

§ LORD AIREDALE
I think that on balance these Amendments are worth while, but I wonder whether the practical effect will be that fewer catalogues will be issued to stamp collectors to study in their own homes. I mention this point because the last page of the catalogue is used for the purpose of contracting out. If the collector has an opportunity of consulting the catalogue only in the shop, she is much less likely to read the conditions about contracting out on the last page, whereas if she has a catalogue in her own home, she can read at her leisure the whole of those provisions, which we may regard as rather mischievous.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
This is one of the disadvantages of putting in the Sale of Goods Act. However well-intentioned the noble Lord is, I rather think that, even if customers read the last page, the purport of contracting out would remain obscure. I do not think that the noble Lord need fear 792 anything about this. One of the points taken care of in this Amendment is that the current catalogue should be on display in the shop. There are difficulties in making a current catalogue available to take away; but, of course, the catalogue is the main sales instrument of any scheme. The promoter has lavished an enormous amount of attention and care on printing a coloured catalogue, and the noble Lord need have no fear that the stamp companies will seek to limit the distribution of these catalogues; because if they did so, they would not be getting the benefit of the attraction of the goods shown in them and their advertisement of the scheme. I do not think that the Amendment will have this effect.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
Is the noble Viscount satisfied with the definition of "shop" which arises in connection with this Amendment? On looking at the Interpretation Clause, I see that "shop" is drawn as widely as humanly possible, but even then are there any trading stamp activities which may take place outside any premises, and any vehicle, stall or place other than premises, on or in which any retail trade or business is carried on: It might not be a retail business—I am thinking of the garage which, under manipulation under the Resale Prices Bill, ceases to be a retail establishment and instead becomes an agency.

§ THE EARL OF SANDWICH
I wonder whether my noble friend would look at the possibility of substituting the word "copies" for "copy", in line 4 of Amendment No. 33. We all know what happens to a much-used London Telephone Directory on the slab of a large hotel. It seems to me that if we are to require only one catalogue to be kept in a large departmental store or multiple grocery, it will soon get into a tattered condition and there is no requirement in law for the owner to renew it, except when a new catalogue is issued. If "copies" were substituted, then, of course, they could be confined to two, which would not be too expensive for a small shop or store.

§ LORD AIREDALE
Or perhaps at the next stage, before "copy" we could insert the word "clean".

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
I think that is asking for litigation. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, raised the 793 question of the definition of "shop". This is a highly complicated matter and there is a great body of court decisions upon the meaning of "shop", as well as numerous definitions in various Statutes. Without having had notice, I do not know how this particular definition fits in. At the moment, I can think of no activity that would be carried on outside this definition. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to think of such an activity. If he will write me about what he has in mind, I will see whether it can be covered. I think the definition is drafted as widely as it can he at the moment.
I should like to look at the point raised by my noble friend Lord Sandwich to see whether it can be dealt with in a way that will not be too burdensome and require too many copies of these fairly expensive catalogues to be produced. I think it is a good point, and I should like to study it. Otherwise, I think the Amendment is acceptable.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
I was thinking of a house-to-house salesman who might carry the catalogue but might not carry the current catalogue. I do not think that is a shop, although perhaps if he comes on a vehicle, or stands in a stall he becomes a shop. I will leave it with the noble Viscount.

§ VISCOUNT BRENTFORD
If this itinerant salesman comes round, does he not convert the front door step on which he is doing business into a shop?

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ 7.22 p.m.

§ LORD AIREDALE moved, in subsection (1), after "number" to insert: and aggregate cash face value".

§ The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment to that part of Clause 5 which requires retailers to display in their shops notices which will enable stamp collectors to know the number of trading stamps to which they will be entitled in relation to purchases they make. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that not only the number of trading stamps shall be stated, but also their cash value. If trading stamps are going to have cash values of, say, one-seventeenth of a penny, and the lady shopper is entitled on a certain purchase 794 to 23 trading stamps, her arithmetic may not be up to calculating what is the value of 23 trading stamps, each worth one-seventeenth of a penny. I should have thought it was a help to everybody, and particularly to the shopper, that not only the number of stamps should be displayed on the notice, but their cash value as well. Presumably, stamp trading promoters will not be ashamed of their cash values—they will be quite pleased that people should know them—and, in my submission, it will be of great help if not only numbers of stamps but cash values, as well, are shown on these notices. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 3, line 29, after ("number") insert ("and aggregate cash face value").—(Lord Airedale.)

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
I am a little puzzled about the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has here in mind. It may be that some people want more help with their arithmetic than others, and probably I need as much as anybody, but, seriously, I do not think there is any need to legislate on behalf of the ordinary person in adding up this type of thing, even if it could be done. Perhaps the noble Lord does not quite appreciate how I envisage this system of notices working. The noble Lord at one stage (I think it was in his Second Reading speech, or perhaps it was privately to me) suggested that the effect of Clause 5, as at present worded, would be to require a shopkeeper to put up a list of literally every item in his shop, with the price and number of trading stamps against it. This would then, no doubt, be a format into which the noble Lord's Amendment could fit, because then it would be possible to add up the face value of whatever number of trading stamps was set against the particular article. But I think this would be a ludicrous form of notice to put up. Imagine, first of all, the size of it. It would be impossible for the shopper to find her way through a prodigious notice of every article in one of Lord Sainsbury's stores, supposing that there were such a thing as a trading stamp in one of them.
I do not think it is reasonable to ask the shopkeeper to put up that type of notice. The type of notice that I 795 envisage going up under the terms of Clause 5 is something on these lines: For every 6d. spent in this shop one trading stamp will be delivered, except for chocolate and cigarettes, for which you will get no trading stamps; but on Tuesday you will get two trading stamps for every 6d. I envisage something quite simple, in that form, setting out the way the shopkeeper is operating the scheme, setting out the goods for which you get no trading stamps, and any particular terms, such as the Tuesday one I have mentioned, where he is prepared to try to attract people to his shop on a slack day. I do not envisage anything more complicated than that, and into that type of notice the noble Lord's Amendment could not fit, because there would be nothing to add up and no list of goods against which the aggregate could be set. The notice he suggests is not the sort of notice that I should wish to see provided under Clause 5, and I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.

§ LORD AIREDALE
I admit that I did express (and it was privately) those fears which the noble Viscount has perfectly accurately recollected and expressed. I am only thankful that my fears were unfounded, and that a complete inventory of all the items of the shop will not be published, with the numbers of trading stamps against them. Nevertheless, however simple the notice is, and even if it says that for every 6d. you get one trading stamp, and says nothing more, my Amendment seeks to ensure that it shall say in addition: "One trading stamp worth one seventeenth of a penny" or whatever it may be. Then, customers going into the shop for the first time and wondering whether they will become stamp collectors will have a clear idea of what the cash value of these trading stamps is, and will be able to make up their minds whether they want to join the scheme or shop somewhere else. I hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount may find the Amendment acceptable.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
The "aggregate" is not the correct word, because there will be no aggregate against which any sum can be set; nor will it help on arithmetic, because it will be the simple value, which is shown 796 clearly under the other clauses of the Bill, on the face of every stamp in the shop. If a customer wishes to know the value of a stamp, all she has to do is to ask to look at one. I do not see that this will help at all.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
Now that we have this clear, I think that it becomes a rather more attractive idea. The Amendment as it stands is, of course, not suitable, but if the shopkeeper is required to put up the number of trading stamps for the transaction, even if it is one trading stamp for 6d. or whatever it may be, why not put up the cash value at the same time? The noble Viscount says that they have only to get the trading stamp to see the value; then they have only to buy something to know how many trading stamps they get. It would seem to me that one is giving a little more information. I suggest, quite seriously, that this does seem to be advantageous in relation to cash values.
The noble Viscount argued quite eloquently in an earlier debate—at least, I think he did; certainly some noble Lords did—that competition would be effective in relation to cash values. This is one way in which one can encourage that competition. People go into a shop; they see what they get in the way of stamps, and they see the cash value of the stamp. They can see that in one scheme they only get 056 of a penny, and in another they get 78, or something like that. I should have thought that this was an idea worth exploring, and if would seem to require only a fairly simple Amendment. I do not mean the Amendment, as drafted. I think the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, accepts that this is based on a misconception, and I may say that it is one that I shared. But now that we have this point clear, I think there is something in the idea. and perhaps the noble Viscount would like to consider it. I am urging this quite seriously.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
I do not think there is any particular objection to this. The rest of the terms of the scheme are to be displayed in the shop, and if the noble Lord thinks this might be an improvement I will certainly look at it again. I see no reason, on the face of it. why if the number of stamps you are to get is displayed in the notice you should not also have some 797 remark about the face value of them. I will certainly respond to the noble Lord's suggestion, but not to this Amendment.

§ LORD AIREDALE
I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. I, too, quite accept that the Amendment in this form is not satisfactory. I must confess that it was not until I heard the noble and learned Viscount's exposition just now that I got a picture in my mind of how the provisions of Clause 5(1) were going to be applied. That is why this Amendment, in its present form, is defective. In the hope that we may return to this subject later, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD AIREDALE
This Amendment also springs from my difficulty in appreciating the true meaning of Clause 5(1). It occurred to me that the quickest and simplest way to express, for the benefit of shoppers, the number of trading stamps to which they would be entitled would be to do it on the notice in the way this Amendment says—that is to say, in respect of every 10s. spent on purchases or on any other transaction. I am not wedded to the sum of 10s. If you like to take every 5s. or £1 spent I do not mind at all. But I thought that this Amendment was perhaps clearer, if I may say so, than Clause 5(1) in its present state. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 3, line 29, leave out from ("entitled") to the end of line 30 and insert ("in respect of every ten shillings spent on purchases or on any other transaction").—(Lord Airedale.)

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
I think this also arises, as the noble Lord said, somewhat from the same cause. I am a little unhappy about the terms of this Amendment. There is a limit, I am perfectly certain, to the degree which one can in legislation spoon-feed the customer in a matter of arithmetic. If the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is right, and a notice is to be put up of the face value of the stamp, then it really cannot be beyond possibility that a customer can work out how much he or she will get for 10s. or any other sum. The danger I foresee arising out of the noble Lord's suggestion is that, if customers are in such need of help and instruction in their 798 arithmetic, it perhaps presumes that the noble Lord is thinking of people who may not be very clear about the whole terms of the scheme. If you suggest to them that you get a certain number of stamps for 5s., 10s., or whatever it may be, it may appear to them to be the case that you get stamps only if you spend 5s. or 10s.; they may not realise that this is merely a logarithmic calculation, or whatever it may be, to assist them in their arithmetic. I think this may be quite misleading, and I should like the noble Lord to think about that, because, after all, the last thing one wants in putting up notices to help customers is to do them out of the stamps to which they are entitled. I seriously think that this might be the result.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
The shopper will not need a logarithmic table, but it might be desirable to provide a slide rule. Some of these calculations will be anything but simple. I would not press this, but I should still like to see some noble Lords multiplying 0.164 by 15, or whatever it might be. Perhaps just a bit of pencil and paper is needed, or it may be that a suitable table is needed at the check-out point.

§ LORD AIREDALE
I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
I put down this Amendment in order to meet a point the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, mentioned to me privately. I do not intend there to be a large list of all goods in the shop and I thought that possibly the word "given", in the place where it appears in this clause, would suggest that this was the intention. I do not think it does any harm to leave it out, and if you agree, I think it will produce the type of notice I have already explained to your Lordships. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 3, line 30, leave out ("given").(Viscount Colville of Calross.)

§ LORD AIREDALE
I am a little disappointed in the noble and learned Viscount, because at one stage I thought that his Clause 5 was going to require a complete inventory, and that this was his secret weapon for destroying stamp trading altogether.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

799

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
I have already spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 3, line 30, at end insert ("and (b) if any current catalogue has been published for the trading stamp scheme by or on behalf of the promoter, a copy of that catalogue shall be kept where it can be conveniently consulted by customers.")—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
This Amendment provides for the insertion of a defence for the shopkeeper who fails to comply with what are now the two requirements in Clause 5: first of all, to keep up a notice showing the terms of the scheme and, secondly, to keep a current catalogue. As your Lordships will appreciate, there may be occasions, particularly when it comes to the catalogue, where the failure to provide it, or to provide a current one, is outside the control of the shopkeeper. It may be that his catalogue has been lost in the post, or was not posted by the trading stamp company in time, or something of that nature. Technically, as the clause now stands, he would be absolutely guilty of the offence, and he would have no excuse whatever to bring when he came before the magistrates' court. I think this is unreasonable, and I have therefore provided him with a let-out if he can show a reasonable excuse why he has not complied with the provisions of this clause. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 3, line 33, after ("If") insert ("without reasonable excuse any of").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD AIREDALE
I understand that the law of England recognises personal injuries, on the one hand, and damage to property, on the other. But this subsections says: If any person 'injures' any notice … I should have thought the phrase "if any person damages any notice" was more appropriate. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 3, line 37, leave out ("injures") and insert ("damages").—(Lord Airedale.)

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
This Amendment causes me a certain amount of grief, because at one moment 800 I thought I should be able to accept at least one of the noble Lord's Amendments. But in this case I am afraid I cannot do so, and I will tell the noble Lord why. This subsection is treated in exactly the same way as Section 138(4) of the Factories Act, 1961, which also deals with notices which you must not pull down, injure or deface. It is, I think, in the interests of conformity to statutory language, where you are dealing with a precisely similar set of circumstances, that you should use, if it is possible to do so, precisely similar words. It is true that the word "injure", when it is applied to an article is of somewhat archaic usage, but I do not think it is entirely impossible to understand it in the clear sense in which it is meant, and it might be a little broader than the word "damage". I should like to quote one authority which is one I found in Murray's Lexicon for the use of the word "injure" in this particular sense. It goes as follows: Those parts of the wall which are near to the ground, but the alternate injuries of dust and wet are very apt to moulder and rot. That comes from Leoni's translation of Alberti's Architecture, 1726. So it is possible to find a precedent, and I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.

§ LORD AIREDALE
I do not mind a bit what the Factories Act says, and I am not going to withdraw this Amendment.

§ On Question, Amendment negatived.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 3, line 39, at end insert— ("(5) In this section 'current catalogue' means any such catalogue as is described in section 4(1) of this Act, being a catalogue which has not been superseded or withdrawn.")—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ On Question, Whether Clause 5, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

§ 7.40 p.m.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
I should like to say just a few words. I am very grateful for the noble Viscount's explanation as to what the promoters had in mind in regard to the notice that must be posted 801 in the shop premises, but, as I understand it—and I think this is right—it will be the duty of the shopkeeper to put up the notice. Equally, I understand that it is the duty of the shopkeeper himself to prepare the notice. Therefore, we may well have many types of notice in all the different shops with the same object of giving information.
It may well be that one shop will have its notice in a fairly large print coming within the definition that it "will enable customers readily to ascertain". Equally, I should have thought the notice might be a small typewritten notice done on a machine with a very small type-face. It could still be claimed that it enabled customers "readily to ascertain", but it might be very difficult when relating that type of notice to the premises in which it was being displayed. This morning I went into a small shop in Streatham in which it was very difficult to move around because of the amount of goods on display. Apart from that there may be a mass of advertising literature and notices perhaps showing "knock down" prices that one sees in many shops.
I should have thought that if the notice is not very clearly readable, or of such a character that the public's attention is drawn to it, the notice will be of very little value. I wonder whether the noble Viscount would perhaps have some consultation with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, whose Department, I think, was responsible for the Weights and Measures Act (and I believe also some other legislation, including the Hire-Purchase Bill on which we had some discussion over the legibility of documents) to see whether subsection (1) can be re-phrased. I think that responsibility should be laid on the shopkeeper to ensure that the notice is of such a character that it can be read easily and without difficulty by the harassed shopper.
I appreciate what the noble Viscount has in mind with regard to the notice. It may well be that the shopkeeper would have a very involved notice, not with the intention of making things difficult, but in order to give information to the shopper; but it may be so confusing that it may be of little value. I should be grateful if the noble Viscount would have 802 consultations with the Minister for his Ministry have had some experience in drafting provisions in legislation dealing with this problem, and I am sure that one or two words added to this subsection could make the responsibility of the shopkeeper clearer.

§ LORD AIREDALE
Might I ask why this clause begins with the words: In the case of every shop … there shall be kept posted a notice …"? Why does it not say: "In every shop there shall be kept posted a notice"? If you say only, "In the case of", it might mean that the notice could be kept posted on the pavement outside the shop. Would the customers have to go and stand in the rain in order to study it?

§ BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD
I should like to support the noble Lord Lord Shepherd, on this question of legibility, because so much difficulty is caused when people who wish to escape their obligations print things in fine print which one cannot read. We have had this point before, in connection with hire-purchase agreements, and so on. I think it would be a great help, and also very wise, to include some such words as "clearly written", or some similar phrase. These notices should not be typed in tiny print on very flimsy paper which tears so easily that it becomes useless. I think it would be of value to put in a word or two to this effect.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
I think this is probably a good point but I wonder whether it would be adequately dealt with in the mind of the noble Lord and noble Lady if the subsection read: There shall be kept posted such a notice as will enable customers readily to ascertain … I think the main difficulty, where there is a penal provision that will have to be interpreted in the magistrates' courts, in most cases, is that it is undesirable to get involved in requiring a whole lot of things to be proved. If you use words like "clear" and "legible", as well as "readily ascertained", this provides three things upon which a dispute could arise in a magistrate's court. That, I am sure, is undesirable. If it can possibly be done in one word, that is the best way of doing it. I will look into the noble Lord's suggestion to see if the wording can be 803 improved. So far as Lord Airedale's point is concerned, I have no idea what the answer is. It has always been thus in the Bill. I will see whether it should remain so.

§ Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.

§ Clause 8 [Interpretation]:

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 5, line 6, leave out ("herein") and insert ("in this definition").—(Viscount Colville of Cuirass.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
This Amendment also is drafting. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 5, line 10, leave out ("herein") and insert ("in this definition").—(Viscount Colville of Cuirass.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (c) of the proviso, and to insert: (c) in the case where a business is carried on at six or more separate retail establishments, the stamp is one of a kind obtainable at no more than six of those retail establishments, and not obtainable by the public elsewhere and the arrangements under which it is redeemable are entirely separate from arrangements under which any other stamps, whether trading stamps or not, are redeemable.

§ The noble Viscount said: This is a fairly important point, although perhaps not a very large one. I am sorry to have to inflict upon your Lordships and upon the public the definition of trading stamps which appears in this Bill at the length it does, but in order to be perfectly clear what is to be caught by this Bill and what is not I think it is necessary to go into some detail of the types of things one has in mind, because, of course, there are all sorts of sales promotion other than trading stamps which one does not necessarily wish to treat in the same way as trading stamps.

§ The clause, as it at present stands, does not, I think, carry out the purpose which was intended. I refer to paragraph (c) 804 of the proviso to this definition. The present wording would enable any chain of shops with six or more retail outlets to carry on a trading stamp scheme without complying with the provisions of this Bill provided that the stamps were redeemable only either at the particular shop where they were issued or at the head office of the firm. This seemed to me to let in the sort of scheme which, although perhaps from the point of view of its promoter is quite different, from the public's point of view is quite indistinguishable from any other trading stamp operation. Because, after all, if a large chain of shops issues coloured pieces of paper which have precisely the same effect as any trading stamp issued by a trading stamp company separate from the shop from which the trading stamp is issued, I do not see any reason why, from the consumer's point of view, you should differentiate between them, and why you should not have face value and the rest of it written on them.

§ I have sought in this Amendment, therefore, to change the provisions of this definition. Although paragraph (b) for the most part exempts from the terms of the Bill, as not being a trading stamp, the type of retail trading stamp when it is issued on a small scale, the new provisions of paragraph (c) will, I think, tidy it up. It says that if a chain of shops issues trading stamps of one particular brand in one particular scheme in more than six of these shops. then these shall be trading stamps. The number "six" is purely arbitrary, but I think it is as good a figure as any other; and I do not think there is any likelihood of there being a misuse of this provision because I cannot envisage any sensible company making entirely separate provision for each group of six shops in order to get out of putting the face value on the stamp. I think this closes a loophole and will be to the benefit of the consumer and give a little more protection under the Bill. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 5, line 15, leave out lines 15 to 21 and insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Colville of Cuirass.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

805

§ Clause 9 [Short title, extent and commencement]:

§ 7.51 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
I explained the purpose of this Amendment at an early stage last Thursday. I would just remind the Committee that it is a result of Lord Shepherd's suggestion that different parts of this Bill might come into force at different times. It provides for Clause 1 to come into effect earlier than the later, more difficult, administration Clauses, Clauses 2 to 5, and I hope it will have the approval of your Lordships. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 5, line 45 leave out subsection (3) and insert— ("(3) Section 1 of this Act shall come into force at the expiration of a period of six months beginning with the date of the passing of this Act, and sections 2 to 5 and section (advertisements referring to value of trading stamps) of this Act shall come into force at the expiration of a period of twelve months beginning with that date.")—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

§ LORD SHEPHERD
I am most grateful for what the noble Viscount has done in this matter, but I think it would be very ungenerous of me if I did not say that the germ of the idea in fact stemmed from the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, on Second Reading. Therefore, in accepting the credit, I should like to associate the noble Earl with it.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
Since this is the last Amendment, I do not think we should leave the Committee stage without noting that this has been rather a profitable hour-and-a-half, and I hope the Chief Whip is more reconciled to our performance the other night. I notice he is here to see we do not get out of order on this occasion. I think that we have achieved quite a lot. I am sure the whole Committee have recognised the great amount of hard work the noble Viscount has put in. I must say I think his reputation has gone up steadily throughout this Bill, and if he felt a little short-tempered on occasions he also realises that the House has ways of curbing such activities.
We were greatly helped—and this I think was the decisive point in the Bill—by the quite spirited action of the 806 noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, who has fought for the consumer all the way through, rather despairingly at times; and I think it was the last flush of battle in her eye that stirred us into making this further effort. I think even the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, an extremist, like all Liberals, was not so saddened by some of the concessions that were made. What has been most notable has been the total silence of the Government during the last part of the debate, which I can only say is typical of their attitude towards the interests of the consumer.

§ LORD DRUMALBYN
I should like to join in the congratulations to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for his handling of this Committee stage. I am bound to say that, having said what I had to say at the end of the last debate, I felt I should expedite matters much better by remaining silent, and so I think it has proved. I think we have had a valuable discussion on the remainder of the Bill.

§ BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD
As I am afraid I held up the Committee several times, I would add my thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for the way he has listened to my pleas for the consumer. I am sorry to tell him they are not entirely finished, but on this occasion I would add my thanks and congratulations on the very skilful manner in which he has handled an extremely complicated Bill.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

§ House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.