§ 2.36 p.m.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of recent disclosures, they are prepared to tighten up the law for the protection of the public against doubtful practices at auctions.]
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON)My Lords, it is already an offence to conspire to defraud the public by means of sham bidders at an auction. Moreover, in cases where there is no reserve price or where the right to bid by or on behalf of the seller has not been expressly reserved, any sale made to a third party following a bid on behalf of the seller may be held to he invalid. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has no reason to suppose that there is need for further legislation in relation to such matters.
§ LORD WADEMy Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for the reply, so far as it goes. Would he agree that there are many facets to this problem? There is the ganging-up of dealers to defeat the vendor, and also the case of the auctioneer, selling without a reserve, acting in collaboration with a nominee bidder who pretends to be a dealer. With regard to that, has the attention of the noble Lord been brought to the article in the Sunday Times of April 9 last describing the activities of a firm 188 known as Anglo and Middle-East Factors Limited? If the methods there described are within the law, is there not some case for amending the law in order to protect the general public?
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I have read, I must say with considerable interest, the article to which the noble Lord refers, but clearly it is not for me to express a judgment on what the true facts of that case are. But I would repeat that it is a Common Law offence to conspire to defraud the public by means of an auction with sham bidders, and anybody having evidence of such a conspiracy would, or possibly even should, report it to the police for further action.
§ LORD ILFORDMy Lords, is the noble Lord able to say how many prosecutions there have been under the existing legislation?
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I know there have been two such prosecutions, though I must admit that one of them goes back to the last century; there was another one in 1928. But the reason for failure, presumably, is either that the public do not feel they have been swindled, or possibly that they may be rather chary of coming forward and presenting themselves as the victims of such a swindle.
§ LORD ILFORDMy Lords, will the noble Lord endeavour to stimulate a little more interest in this subject than that displayed hitherto on the part of the police and other authorities?
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I think it is for the public who are aggrieved, rather than for Her Majesty's Government, to stimulate the police in this matter. I am quite certain that the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, as well as the article to which he has referred, will stimulate a considerable amount of interest.
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, is it not a fact that a principal consideration is that the public do not know they are being swindled?
§ LORD WADEMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would look into this matter very carefully? There is no doubt that innocent members of the general public are being duped. At 189 the same time, may I ask whether he would agree with me that these questions do not reflect in any way upon the auctioneers' profession as a whole, who conduct their affairs very honourably, and of whom I have no criticism?
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I would certainly agree with the second part of the noble Lord's question. The auctioners and antique dealers, and others concerned with these matters, on the whole have extremely high standards of honesty. But I would repeat that the real solution to this problem, in so far as it exists, lies with the public who have been duped, if indeed they have been, or consider they have been, and who are not ashamed of coming forward and saying, "We thought we were getting a bargain and in fact we were not."